Sitting of 15 May 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to the borough of King's Lynn, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Internal Air Mail
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Postmaster-General (1) what increase or decrease there has been, since the introduction of the two-tier post, in the amount of internal air mail;
    (2) what increase or decrease there has been, since the introduction of the two-tier post, in payments to British European Airways for internal air mail carriage.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): Six per cent. decrease in weight. Payments are about £10,000 a month higher following revision of our contract with B.E.A. for the first time since 1959.
    Mr. Mills: Is it not a fact that at present mail is not moving faster internally? Indeed, everyone now realises that the two-tier system is not working and that mail is not moving so fast, particularly in the South-West.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot agree. The first-class mail reliability is very good,
    1614
    with an overall performance of 94 per cent. delivery the next day. The second-class mail performance for delivery the day after that is also very high.

    Advertising Agreement
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Postmaster-General if he will publish details of the agreement between the Post Office and Thomson Organisation for mutual assistance on advertising.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Thomson's promotes advertising in telephone directories. Post Office advertising aims to encourage greater use of the books.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the Postmaster-General confirm that in return for this concession to advertise in the yellow pages the Thomson Organisation published a four-page supplement advertising the Post Office free? Is it not an objection to barter of this sort that the Thomson Organisation is less liable to corporation tax than it would be if it received payment in full for these services?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is is a very agreeable commercial relationship between the Post Office and Thomson's which produces a very good return for the Post Office. Responsibility for the Thomson advertising is that of the organisation itself. If this produces a better image for the Post Office, I am delighted.

    Addressing of Letters
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to promote the improvement in the accuracy of addressing of letters.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Publicity in the form of leaflets, notices and posters.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that in the appropriate section of the telephone directory for Westmorland there is a pretty drawing of Wordsworth's cottage with the caption—"Dove Cottage, Rydal, Ambleside, Westmorland"? Do not even the hon. Gentleman and his Department know that Wordsworth's cottage is at Grasmere and not at Rydal?
    Mr. Slater: That may be so. I cannot say [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait while I answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Wake up!
    Mr. Slater: Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to answer the supplementary which has been asked by the hon. Gentleman who tabled the Question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must get on with his answer.
    Mr. Slater: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) for the Question that he has tabled, because it gives me the opportunity of saying that, thanks to the skill of our sorters, most letters are delivered on time, but about ½ million a day—[Interruption.] I am saying this for the benefit of hon. Members—are badly addressed and slow down sorting. Half of them have to be given special attention. I shall look into the point the hon. Gentleman raised in regard to their addressing.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Wordsworth was long but answers should be short.
    Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the non-existent answer to my Question, I beg to give notice—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice of intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment must be given in the conventional way. Other words waste time.

    Special Postage Stamps
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Postmaster-General when he will issue a British motor racing stamp to mark the world-wide achievements of British racing motor drivers and cars.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: We shall certainly bear this in mind when choosing future stamp programmes.
    Mr. Cooke: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind the unequalled pre-eminence of British racing motor cars and British racing drivers in the last few years and recall that it is the only sport in which the British have been consistently pre-eminent year after year and, therefore, they deserve a stamp?
    Mr. Slater: Many hundreds of subjects are suggested to us for commemoration by the issue of a stamp. My right hon. Friend has a difficult task in choosing be-
    1616
    tween them. Inevitably, worthy subjects can be excluded and people are disappointed, as applies in the case the hon Gentleman has suggested.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Postmaster-General if he will issue a special stamp on 24th October, 1970 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: We have not yet decided the anniversaries to be celebrated by special stamps in 1970, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this anniversary is on the list and is being seriously considered.
    Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my hon Friend for that assurance. Will he pay special attention to the suggestion, since there is a case for getting away from too narrow a nationalism in the design of our stamps?
    Mr. Slater: We fully recognise the importance of the organisation and the occasion, but we issued two special stamps for the United Nations in 1965, and we do not normally commemorate the same organisation twice in five years. But we are still considering the matter.

    Postal Service (Westmorland)
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the standard of the postal service in Westmorland since the introduction of the two-tier system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Yes, Sir. Earlier staff and transport difficulties have been overcome.
    Mr. Jopling: Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General remember that on 27th February the Postmaster-General said that Westmorland was well behind the rest of the country? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the last week I have received a letter concerning an important export order from one of my constituents which involved documents being sent by first-class mail in an ordinary envelope and which took five days to get from Hull to Windermere and a further five days to get from Windermere to Manchester, again by first-class mail?
    Mr. Slater: We shall look into the individual case the hon. Gentleman has

    1617
    mentioned in his supplementary question, but complaints average about three a month.

    L.A.C.E.S. Computer, London Airport
    Mr. Wallasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about the proposed new L.A.C.E.S. computer for London Airport.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Tenders are being evaluated and a contract will be awarded shortly.
    Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of installing British equipment in a place such as this, which is a great gateway to Britain?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I shall bear all factors in mind, but I want to award the contract to the supplier who can provide the best overall service.

    Post Office Board
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Postmaster-General what will be the salaries of the Chairman and members of the Post Office Board when the Post Office becomes a nationalised industry.
    Mr. Stonehouse: These details will be given as and when appointments are made.
    Mr. Baker: Since the Post Office will be in the top league of nationalised industries, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to pay top league salaries, as recommended in the Prices and Incomes Board's Report; namely, £20,000 a year for the Chairman and appropriate levels down the scale? As they are new appointments, may I ask him to pay the full £20,000 and not the reduced level that other chairmen are getting?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I shall pay the proper rate to get the best man for the chairmanship and the best men or women as directors.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Deputy Chairman is to receive £2,000 a year, and be part-time, as is rumoured?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot confirm or deny rumours that appear in the Press.

    Two-Tier Postal System
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now satisfied that the new postal arrangements are working according to plan and with the measures taken to make them understood by the public; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir.
    Sir B. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are still a large number of people who are not aware of the delays likely to be incurred when the 4d. stamp is used? Will he ascertain whether the delays are causing undue anxiety to people?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I do not believe that they are causing undue anxiety, because the public know that if they want a first priority they must send their mail by first-class post, and 94 per cent. of it will be delivered by the next day. Over 90 per cent. of second-class post is delivered by the second day after posting. This is a very reliable service.
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster General what further plans he has regarding the timing of the delivery of second-class post; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: None, Sir.
    Mr. Gilmour: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public would regard any further deterioration in the 4d. post as intolerable? Will he, therefore, unequivocally repudiate the remarks made on the subject in the Wesil Report?
    Mr. Stonehouse: There has been no deterioration in the 4d. post, which is achieving the delivery performance that was planned for it. I in no way intend to delay the delivery of second class mail. The standard of performance we now have provides a service to the public, and we shall maintain it.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much overtime has been paid directly or indirectly to Post Office staff to delay 4d. mail?
    Mr. Stonehouse: None, Sir.

    Giro
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Postmaster-General why a minimum initial deposit of £5 is required to open an account with Giro.
    Mr. Stonehouse: To provide an initial working balance.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one can pay £1 over the counter at any commercial bank and open an account? The requirement of an initial deposit of £5 is a discouragement to ordinary people who want to open an account with the Giro. It is a quarter of the ordinary man's weekly wage.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not entirely convinced that it is a discouragement, because the number of accounts we are opening is quite good, but I shall consider whether it would be helpful to reduce the deposit, though I am not convinced that it would be.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider every idea for making the Giro more attractive, particularly as his forecast of 1 million accounts has been shown to be totally wrong, as there are only 110,000 at present?
    Mr. Stonehouse: There is another Question on the Order Paper about this. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was not my forecast.

    Post Office Raids (Compensation to Injured Persons)
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General on what criteria he decides the amount of compensation to be awarded to those people who are injured in resisting raids on post offices.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Compensation for these injuries is mainly the responsibility of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
    If it does not make an award we consider an ex gratia payment of up to £50 for personal loss and damage.
    Mr. Gilmour: Will the Minister reconsider the standards? Is he aware that in a recent case a 60-year old sub-postmaster was blinded while resisting thugs, and was given the derisory sum of £25?
    Mr. Slater: If it is the case that I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the sub-postmaster received a bravery award from the Post Office. Compensation comes under an Act for which the hon. Gentleman's Government were responsible, and which I think was right and proper, and claims for compensation for injury and damage should be made under that Act. Where we can assist by an ex gratia payment, we do that.

    Mini Postal Bus Service (Norfolk)
    Dr. Grayasked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to extend the mini postal bus service to rural Norfolk.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: We have no immediate plans.
    Dr. Gray: In view of the under-population and lack of public transport in the area, and the failure of the Norfolk County Council to use its discretionary power to provide transport for children who have less than two miles to walk to school, could my hon. Friend come to the rescue, think again, and extend his imaginative service to rural Norfolk?
    Mr. Slater: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for his constituency and all of rural Norfolk. We have given every consideration to this, and are prepared to have another look at the matter.

    Post Office (Chairman)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Postmaster-General when he will announce the name of the Chairman of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Not yet.
    Mr. Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay is intolerable? How long has he been looking for a Chairman? It is true that he has approached seven people who have turned him down? As he has not made a decision on the salary, how does he think he can approach people to take on this important job?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It would not have been appropriate to announce the appointment of the Chairman until the Post Office Bill had gone through all its stages in the House of Commons. Certain Amendments were considered which would have had some bearing on the matter. I have

    1621
    been considering the appointment since last July. It is not true that seven people have turned it down; none has turned it down. I have been considering a wide variety of names so that I may appoint the best individual for the job when the time comes.

    Wesil Report
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now make a statement on the investigation into and report on the Post Office and its postal services, carried out and compiled by Denis Wesil, the former North Eastern Postal Director.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not proposing to take major decisions on the Wesil Report until all views on it have been considered.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister publish the report, or let us have it in some way, so that we can examine is properly, rather than reading the brief Press reports?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I published it, and it is available to all hon. Members if they wish to have it.

    Dalton Crown Office
    Mr. Boothasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the letter sent to him by the Dalton and District Owner Occupiers Association, he will inquire into the extent to which people have to wait to be served in the Dalton Crown Office; and if he will maintain and improve the service provided by this post office.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: A recent inspection showed that even at busy times no one wanted longer than 3½ minutes. For most people there was practically no waiting. We shall do all we can to maintain a good standard of service.
    Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman state what justification there can be for the proposed closure of Dalton Post Office, in view of the increasing demand for its services? Will he give an undertaking that in the event of this proposal being implemented, no full-time employee will lose his job?
    Mr. Slater: We have to provide services as economically as possible, and we
    1622
    cannot afford to retain a Crown Office where the standard of service can be given as efficiently and more economically on an angency basis. I can assure my hon Friend that no permanent employee will lose his job.

    Postal Deliveries (London)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the further representations from the hon. Member for West Ham, North about letters carrying first-class postage taking two and three days to reach Westminster when posted in boroughs in the inner London and Greater London boundaries; and whether he will now take action to improve these postal deliveries.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have made inquiries. In each case the letters reached the House of Commons on the day after posting and following redirection were delivered a day after that. They were not delayed in the Post Office.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Postmaster-General have a look at a whole batch of envelopes that have been sent to him over a period of weeks, showing that two or three days have been taken for letters to travel from the Ministry of Transport in Southwark to the House of Commons? Surely he ought to give an assurance that a letter can travel from one London borough to another in 24 hours?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am prepared to investigate all individual complaints, but I am not prepared to accept responsibility when our service is 100 per cent., as it was in the cases referred to in the original Question.

    Contracts (Scotland)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General what was the total value of contracts placed by his Department in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and what were the comparable figures for Fife.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Records do not go back beyond October 1961. Separate information for Fife is not available but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the value of contracts placed in Scotland.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the Post Office

    1623
    telephone exchange equipment is manufactured in development areas, and in which factories in Scotland is it manufactured? Will he say what steps are being taken to encourage the contractors in the bulk supply agreements to produce in the development areas?
    Mr. Slater: Contractors which are parties to the bulk supply agreements have been encouraged to produce as much equipment as possible in development areas, including Scotland. We estimate that about 70 per cent. of our exchange equipment is manufactured in development areas. There are three factories making exchange equipment in Scotland, at East Kilbride, Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy, in Fife.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to Question No. 20 dealing with the Giro, the Postmaster-General said that there was another Question on the Order Paper relating to this. There is no such Question, either Oral or Written. Can we have protection?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise this at the end of Question Time. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman protection against what the Minister says.
    Following is the information:

    Value of contracts directly placed in Scotland by the Post Office

    Year

    £

    1st October, 1961—31st March, 1962—(½ year only)

    1,578,000

    1962–63

    2,323,000

    1963–64

    4,128,000

    1964–65

    3,746,000

    1965–66

    4,387,000

    1966–67

    4,620,000

    1967–68

    4,535,000

    1968–69 (estimated)

    6,000,000

    These figures exclude the substantial orders placed under the Telephone Exchange Equipment Bulk Supply Agreement and the Telephone Apparatus Agreement, for which a geographical breakdown is not available.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Sound Broadcasting
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the financing of the
    1624
    future of sound radio; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bostonasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has now received from the British Broadcasting Corporation about the future financing and transmission of sound broadcasting: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: None yet.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people would be bitterly opposed to any reduction in the quality and quantity of B.B.C. sound programmes? Whatever the financial consideration, does he agree that it would be a thoroughly retrograde step if the B.B.C. decided to abandon the music programme on Channel 3 and close down the long-established regional centres?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that the B.B.C. will keep that point in mind.
    Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend resist the use of advertising in any of the B.B.C.'s programmes in any proposals he makes as a result of the review? Will he confirm that any fresh attempts by the Greater London Council or any other local authority to introduce commercial stations will be resisted?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I was very glad that the House decided to reject the G.L.C. Bill, but I shall have to bear all factors in mind when I consider the results of the experiment, and I would not want to anticipate that evaluation.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: When he made his speech in the debate on the London radio Bill, was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the B.B.C.'s plans, since published in the Press?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am as much aware of the B.B.C.'s plans as any Member. I have not yet had any formal discussions with the B.B.C.
    Dr. Winstanley: While I do not depart from the view that the House should not seek to interfere in any way with programme presentation, production or content, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that before there is any change in the system of broadcasting or any demolition of the present B.B.C. regional structure the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot give an absolute assurance, but I assure the House that before any fundamental changes are made I shall have close consultations with the Corporation.

    Local Radio Experiments
    Mr. Bostonasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about the progress of the local radio experiments.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Not yet.
    Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most significant results of the success of the local radio experiments by the B.B.C. is the enthusiastic response they have had amongst young people? Does he agree that there has been a sizable increase in sales of v.h.f. radio sets in areas with a local radio station?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I agree that there has been a great increase in the participation of young people in the programmes, and that sales of v.h.f. sets have gone up.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve the evident tendency of those engaged in B.B.C. local radio to participate in political controversy, even to the extent in Leeds of circulating Labour Party literature?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not aware of that. But I think that those involved in the experiments are fully entitled to describe their experiences. I believe that they have added a great deal to our information about the experiments.

    Fourth Television Channel
    Mr. Brooksasked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the effects upon the advertisement revenue of newspapers of the granting of a fourth television channel to commercial contractors.
    Mr. Stonehouse: A precise figure is not available.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is illogical to oppose commercial radio on the ground that it might jeopardise newspapers and yet permit a second commercial television channel, which might succeed in killing many of them off? Is not the real priority quality and not quantity?
    Mr. Stonehouse: These are points that we must bear in mind as and when we give consideration to a fourth channel and whether or not it should go to I.T.V.

    Departmental Advertisements
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Postmaster-General how much was paid by the Government to the British Broadcasting Corporation in return for the broadcasting at 12 noon on 2nd May of advertisements put out by Government Departments for more engineers and tax collectors.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Nil, Sir.
    Mr. Ridley: Should not this practice be stopped, since the Minister has now accepted the principle that nationalised industries should not be required to do Government dirty work for nothing? Is he aware that it is remarkably offensive to other employers to have their employees bribed away from them by free advertisements on the B.B.C. which are not available to them to try to bribe away public sector employees?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I do not believe that there is such resentment. The B.B.C. must be allowed to announce such appointments if it chooses, along with other announcements of interest to the public.

    Full Colour Television Service
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Postmaster-General on what date the full colour television service will commence: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Colour on B.B.C.1 and I.T.V. will start on 15th November in the metropolitan area and will be progressively extended to other parts of the country.
    By the end of the year colour on these two services should have become available to more than 40 per cent. of the population of the country.
    Mr. Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement that the Post Office has been able to keep the November date will be widely welcomed by the B.B.C., independent television, and the industry, which has invested £100 million in capital? Will he press on with

    1627
    the extension of the work to the rest of the country?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Dempsey: When does my right hon. Friend expect the colour service to be extended to Scotland?
    Captain Orr: And Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dempsey: How soon does my right hon. Friend expect all the channels in the north of the country to have colour?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I do not expect colour to be extended to Scotland or Northern Ireland before the end of the year, but I hope that we can begin planning to have it a short period after that.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE

      Waiting List, Derbyshire
      Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Postmaster-General how many people are on the waiting list for telephone connections in the Derbyshire area of Nottingham and Sheffield telephone areas.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: Three hundred and twenty two and 248 respectively.
      Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is not that figure much too high in this day and age? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that it is reduced?
      Mr. Slater: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituency. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of exchange equipment, but the manufacturers are working at full capacity and have expanded output as much as they can.

      Telephone Kiosks (Coin Boxes)
      Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the inconvenience in making long-distance calls from public telephone kiosks by means only of 6d. and 1s. pieces, if he will take steps to convert such kiosk meters to accept 2s. pieces.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: Yes, Sir. We shall do this when we adapt the coin boxes for decimal currency.
      Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will not the Minister consider doing it now? Because
      1628
      of the great shortage of shilling pieces, when one makes a trunk call from a box one has to put in 6d. pieces every few seconds, which is most inconvenient.
      Mr. Slater: It would be far too expensive to convert the meters in two stages. We have no fewer than 250,000 coin boxes.

      Apparatus (Direct Purchase)
      Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now allow the public to purchase telephone apparatus directly from the manufacturers.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I am discussing with the industry what equipment could be bought direct.
      Mr. Baker: The House will welcome that, but I press the right hon. Gentleman to accelerate the discussions, since this is a sensible reform which will save the British taxpayer about £300 million over the next five years.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I do not accept that figure, but the discussions are going ahead, and useful talks were held only last week.

    EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

      Annual Marching Week
      Mr. Crawshawasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to initiate an annual Marching Week to be held at some convenient place in the United Kingdom, similar to that held annually at Nijmegen, details of which have been sent to him.
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No, Sir.
      Mr. Crawshaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that brief Answer. Would she not agree that this has reached such proportions that we should do something on a national level, so that we can encourage people to come from overseas to meet us?
      Miss Bacon: It is an interesting idea which my hon. Friend puts forward and the Government would welcome any event which might encourage people to keep fit. However, this kind of event would be better if it were organised by a voluntary body.

      Education Bill
      Mr. Crawshawasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will invite the Pre-School Playgroups Association to submit proposals on changes in the law to be incorporated in the proposed Education Bill.
      Miss Bacon: I have already received the views of the Pre-school Playgroups Association on amendments to the Education Acts.

    HOME DEPARTMENT

      Dr. A. E. Laurence
      Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the case of Dr. A. E. Laurence.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I am at present unable to add anything to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 8th May to a Question by my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 783, c. 118.]
      Mr. Lipton: Does my hon. Friend recall that on 12th May the Home Secretary gave an undertaking that he would make an early statement on the Floor of the House. When is that undertaking to be honoured? Will it be honoured before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Home Secretary will be accused of stalling and evasion if he does not deal with this matter before the House rises for Whitsun?
      Mr. Morgan: It is necessary for inquiries to be concluded, and I have nothing to add to the statement of my right hon. Friend, that this statement would be made quite soon.
      Sir F. Bennett: When can we expect the Home Secretary to make a statement on the case of the Home Secretary?
      Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend confirm something which perhaps needs no statement in the House as confirmation, and that is that for many days before Dr. Laurence returned from his holidays, there were police and newspapermen in the neighbourhood of his house? Is this really a very wise way of maintaining security in such matters?
      Mr. Morgan: The Home Secretary cannot be held responsible for the presence or absence of newspapermen. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to say anything further that would anticipate the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend.

    HOSPITALS

      Nursing Staff (Pay and Conditions)
      Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the pay and conditions of all nursing staff in National Health Service hospitals.
      The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): No, Sir.
      Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is not altogether surprising? Does he recognise that there are a series of problems within the nursing profession as to pay and conditions which were not resolved by the Prices and Incomes Board, and it would seem to be a highly satisfactory solution to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the status, service, conditions and pay of the entire nursing profession to allay the anxieties that are very widespread and particularly evidenced today?
      Mr. Crossman: From our experience of Royal Commission I should have thought that those nurses who feel that they have grievances and are anxious to have speedy treatment of them would be dubious of the speed with which a Royal Commission would work.
      Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that only last week he was very sympathetic towards this problem? Has he changed since? Does he not think that unless something is done very rapidly the whole of the Health Service will be driven into the ground? This is rapidly happening, and surely it is up to him to do something about it very quickly.
      Mr. Crossman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the agreement which was reached was based on a report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the second part of it has only

      1631
      just been implemented. It is my impression that most of the agreement is regarded as an acceptable pattern, and that the dissatisfaction is almost exclusively concerned with the problems of the younger student nurses, and, in particular, with the problem of charges for their meals. This is now under my most active consideration. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a genuine sense of grievance here. I have always said this. I am anxious that we should maintain our present very competent negotiating machinery, and yet deal adequately with this grievance.
      Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied with the pay and conditions of nurses? Does he not think that it is a national disgrace? What would he do if nurses were a little less public-spirited and started a strike?
      Mr. Crossman: I am never satisfied with the pay and conditions of any of the groups in the Health Service, and I should like them all improved. I would remind my hon. Friend that nurses' pay was radically improved, including the pay of student nurses, which went up by between 9 per cent. and 14 per cent. I do not think my hon. Friend ought to jump to the conclusion that the whole package is wrong.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that he has precluded other hon. Members from putting questions, at a time which was most convenient, on what some hon. Members regard as a rather important matter.

      PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (ACCOMMODATION)
      The following Question stood upon the Order Paper—
      Sir KNOX CUNNINGHAM: To ask the Attorney-General what changes are being made in the Public Record Office
      1632
      to meet the increased interest in historical documents; and if he will make a statement.
      Sir Knox Cunningham: I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not present on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps he will be along soon.
      Hon. Members: Where is he?
      Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am longing for points of order.
      Sir Knox Cunningham: May I have your assurance, Mr. Speaker, that as the Attorney-General is not present now to answer my Question, I shall get an answer at 3.30, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the House?
      Mr. Speaker: This has happened before and provision is made in the Standing Orders for this eventuality. If the Attorney-General arrives at 3.30 the hon. and learned Gentleman will be allowed to put his Question. Any more points of order?
      Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that if members of the Conservative Party who put Questions on the Order Paper had the decency to attend the House—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the point of order.
      Mr. Shinwell: If they had the decency to attend at the appropriate time, instead of attending to outside interests, then it would have been possible for the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) to receive a reply to this Question.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's point of order would carry some weight if all the absentees belonged to one side of the House. Unfortunately for his point of order, they do not.
      Sir A. V. Harvey: Further to that point of order. If the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) had been here during all of Question Time he would have known that a great number of his own colleagues were absent from the House.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I had already dealt with that matter, though perhaps less eloquently.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order. It is quite right that there are Members on both sides who are absent—
      Mr. Shinwell: More are absent on the other side.
      Mr. Hamilton: We are about to pass legislation to ban unofficial strikes. I am wondering whether the legislation might apply to this House. Since it is quite clear that some—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help at all.
      Mr. Hamilton: Since it is quite clear that some of the hon. Members who were absent are now present, would it be possible to go back on the Order Paper and give them an opportunity to ask the Questions that they were not here to ask earlier?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We live in the permissive society, but it is not as permissive as that. I want to help the House if I can. The Prime Minister is here——
      Mr. Higgins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I ask Question No. 55?
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Later—
      Mr. Speaker: We now return to Question No. 54.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I greatly regret that I was not present when Question No. 54 was reached. I intended no discourtesy to the House. I apologise for this abberation on my part. Perhaps I shall be permitted to answer the Question now.
      My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor announced in another place on 30th April that accommodation in Her Majesty's Land Registry in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which is no longer needed because of the establishment of District Land Registries, has been made available to the Public Record Office. Search rooms
      1634
      for 100 readers have been opened there and 15,000 feet of records, consisting of Cabinet and Foreign Office records, census returns and other intensively used records, are stored there. Additional space is available there for further search room and storage accommodation as need arises. The accommodation thus made available should meet the needs of the Public Record Office until the mid-seventies. Plans for longer-term needs are being actively pursued.
      Mr. Speaker: Answers, even if late, should be reasonably brief.
      Sir Knox Cunningham: I am grateful to the Attorney-General. May I sympathise with him for the Whips failing in their duty to keep him informed of the business of the House?
      The Attorney-General: I accept full responsibility for my absence.
      Mr. Murray: As more space is being made available for the Public Record Office, will more documents, such as the census of 1871, be made available to the public earlier?
      The Attorney-General: I note my hon. Friend's point.

    NATIONAL FINANCE

      Selective Employment Tax (Reddaway Report)
      Mr. Higginsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to requesting Professor Reddaway to publish an interim report on the selective employment tax.
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): You said that you were grateful to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate him on his arrival. The answer to his Question is as follows:
      My right hon. Friend has agreed with Professor Reddaway that a report will be published as soon as he is able to reach initial conclusions.
      Mr. Higgins: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that will be before the debate on the S.E.T. on the Finance Bill, either in Committee or on Report?
      Mr. Diamond: No, I am certain that that will not be so.
      Mr. Cant: Could my right hon. Friend warn hon. Members opposite to be careful, since, although they welcomed the interim Reddaway Report on foreign investment, they were somewhat aghast when the Final Report was published, and it may be that they will not welcome what Professor Reddaway has to say about the S.E.T.?
      Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will study what Professor Reddaway has to say ultimately with great interest, and I am sure that it will be helpful to the whole House.
      Mr. Costain: Is it not ironic that, if Professor Reddaway had reported on his study of the problem already, the Government would not have put up the S.E.T. by such a large amount?
      Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend would have preferred the report to have been available, but it is an important inquiry and Professor Reddaway has to be given reasonable time to carry it out. My right hon. Friend could not wait till then.
      Mr. Pavitt: When discussing the matter with Professor Reddaway, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the total number of staff employed on this piece of research? Is he aware that it is very difficult to produce such a report quickly unless the staff is augmented?
      Mr. Diamond: Completion of the report would be accelerated if the staff were augmented, but it is just not possible to find people of adequate ability and experience to assist.
      Mr. Ridley: Will the Chief Secretary give an undertaking that if the Reddaway Report pronounces an unfavourable verdict upon the selective employment tax, he will rescind the increase announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement?
      Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman has asked a hypothetical and highly unlikely question.
      Mr. Richard: When this valuable report on the selective employment tax comes to be published and when everybody has had opportunity to consider the, no doubt, very intelligent and valu-
      1636
      able recommendations of Professor Reddaway, will it be the Government's intention to allow the House of Commons an opportunity to debate the report, although, of course, we realise—as I am sure, my right hon. Friend does—that a debate is to take place on Tuesday—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever the circumstances, supplementary questions ought to be reasonably brief.
      Mr. Richard: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I wished to know from my right hon. Friend whether we should have an opportunity to debate the report, despite the debate which is arranged for next Tuesday.
      Mr. Diamond: As I have said, I regret that it will not be possible for the report to be available by then. The question of a debate on the report when it arrives is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the report deal with the incidence of S.E.T. on particular projects? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the traders have come together in Glasgow to spend their fortunes on a new fruit market which would have brought great benefit to the city, but almost all the benefit has been wiped out in a single thud by the massive increase in S.E.T.?
      Mr. Diamond: I was not aware of all the facts, but I am delighted to be informed by the hon. Gentleman that some of the citizens of Glasgow have clubbed together to form a fruit market.
      Mr. Hooley: Is it within Professor Reddaway's terms of reference to consider the technicalities of the collection of this tax when the National Insurance stamp is abolished under the proposals for superannuation made by the Secretary of State for Social Services?
      Mr. Diamond: I doubt that that will be his main consideration, but we shall see when the report is available.
      Mr. Shinwell: As there are still two minutes before Questions to the Prime Minister are to be called, would my right hon. Friend explain what this report is all about?
      Mr. Diamond: The S.E.T., which stands for selective employment tax.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Will Professor Reddaway's report make specific reference to the effects of S.E.T. on the various regions within the United Kingdom or will it devote itself to references to specific industries rather than regions?
      Mr. Diamond: It will not be primarily concerned with regions, since that question has been amply covered by the Hunt Report.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abolished the S.E.T. throughout the film industry, will my right hon. Friend recommend him also to anticipate Professor Reddaway's report by accepting an Amendment to the Finance Bill to abolish it in the theatre?
      Mr. Diamond: As I understand that we are to have a debate next week in which hon. Members may seek to catch the eye of the Chair to discuss the selective employment tax, I think that that will be the appropriate occasion for an Amendment.

      SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX
      Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers responsible for sponsoring the service industries as defined in the regulations relating to selective employment tax; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Emeryasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received about the proposed increase in selective employment tax from the co-operative societies; and what answer he gave.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer works closely together with those of my right hon. Friends who are concerned with the industries affected.
      I have received seven letters from co-operative societies on this subject. The replies have explained the reasons for proposing to increase the selective employment tax this year rather than increase other forms of taxation.
      Mr. Marten: Before we debate the subject next week, will the Prime Minister say why he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers—which is
      1638
      my Question—as the selective employment tax seems to have an effect often diametrically opposed to the very policies which his other Ministers are trying to implement? Is the right hon. Gentleman really so sure that he knows what is going on between his Ministers?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The reason I said that I was satisfied about co-ordination is that I am satisfied about co-ordination. All taxes are bound to have some adverse effects. The hon. Gentleman, who is committed with his right hon. Friends to the abolition of the selective employment tax, now has the duty of finding or proposing how to find revenue of about £600 million a year, which would put up the standard rate of income tax to 10s. in the £ or increase purchase tax by more than 50 per cent., through all the categories covered.
      Mr. Emery: Why will not the Prime Minister admit that the selective employment tax on the co-operative societies in the retail distributive trade is a direct increase in the cost of living, and why will not he admit that this tax is defective, damaging and disgraceful?
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained by how much more the cost of living would be increased if the same revenue were to be raised by, for example, the purchase tax. As regards alternatives, in relation to the co-operative societies, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the speech made by a Co-operative Party Member of Parliament, one of my hon. Friends, who said that compared with the S.E.T. the Tory proposal for a value-added tax would make the S.E.T. look like a measure of consumer protection for co-operative societies.
      Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend keep his mind wide open to representations from co-operative societies, bearing in mind in particular the two factors of which he is well aware, one, that they are non-profit making publicly owned concerns, and, two, that they cannot work on profitability but they must work on service, especially in rural areas in the delivery of milk and bread?
      The Prime Minister: Yes Sir; those two points were excellently made by my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends when they came to see me about this

      1639
      matter a few weeks ago. However, since the House will have an opportunity, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, to debate the matter next week, I think that it would be a little disorderly on my part at Question Time to seek to anticipate what my righ hon. Friends may say in reply to such points.

      IMMIGRANTS
      Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to establish a Department to handle immigrant problems and improve liaison between the Government and the local authorities where there is a large immigrant population.
      The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave to a similar Question by him on 8th May.
      My hon. Friend was appointed to this specially created post and gives a great deal of his time to the issues which the hon. Member has in mind.
      Mr. Smith: But is the Prime Minister aware that many local authorities are not at all happy wih current Ministerial responsibility for immigrant problems or with the lack of freedom which Whitehall grants them in these matters? Should not local councils at least be granted a greater say in the spending of the money which is allocated to them to enable them to deal effectively with immigrant problems?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the need to ensure that we get value for money from this new expenditure in dealing with immigrant problems which was proposed by this Government but was never made forthcoming by the previous Government.
      Mr. Winnick: Would it not be one helpful way to deal with this matter if the Leader of the Opposition dissociated himself from those Tory candidates and Members of Parliament who are calling for the repatriation of coloured immigrants?
      The Prime Minister: I think that the posture of the right hon. Gentleman is always to dissociate himself in tone from his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) but never to dissociate himself from the policy.
      Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister now address himself to matters of substance? Will he not recognise that there is here a matter of great importance as to whether this special allocation of money, which is largely for schools and nursery schools and other special facilities of that kind, would not be better handled for the local authorities through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, so that the Home Office would remain responsible for the control of immigration, but the actual handling of finance would be through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is well experienced in these matters? Would it not also have the advantage that it would prevent anybody in the local areas from saying that this was a discriminatory allocation of money for immigrants? Could it not be handled for the community as a whole, bearing the needs of the immigrants in mind?
      The Prime Minister: This is a perfectly serious point, as I recognise, and it was carefully considered. As I announced in Birmingham last year when I spoke on these matters, the Home Secretary was being asked to look at an urban programme not entirely for immigrant areas and making some provision for areas where there is no major immigrant problem. It is important, particularly in areas where there are immigrants, that these matters should be discussed with my hon. Friend who is almost full time on this subject. There is a great deal of flexibility in the expenditure and it would be wrong to leave it to the individual spending Departments.

      PUBLIC RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS
      Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination among Ministers responsible for public research establishments.
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together on this matter.
      Mr. Osborn: In order to ensure that research is relevant, what consideration have Ministers given to the concept of a single management board for research establishments on which industrialists are

      1641
      represented? Has the Prime Minister considered publishing a White Paper or a Green Paper?
      The Prime Minister: Unfortunately, because of the cheer which greeted the arrival of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I missed one or two words which were central to the hon. Member's question.
      Mr. Osborn: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that research is relevant and ensure that research establishments are under a single management board or authority on which industrialists are represented, and will he publish a Green Paper or a White Paper?
      The Prime Minister: Research establishments are regulated by independent bodies such as the Science Research Council, and these are co-ordinated by a single body which includes industrialists and others to ensure not only that the money is well spent, but that there is a right priority between one kind of scientific research and another. The hon. Gentleman will have seen a report produced by this body and published not long ago. If he has any other points in mind—and I know his interest in the production of synthetic foodstuffs, a subject which he has raised before—perhaps he will let me know and I can go into them specifically.
      Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister ask the responsible Ministers to make large reductions in the £236 million which is spent on military research so that the £3,500,000 charges on teeth and spectacles may be abandoned?
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the substantial reductions made in defence expenditure generally and in defence R. and D. expenditure and of the fact that, partly in consequence of this, but only partly, there has been the biggest increase in expenditure on the social services, particularly the Health Service and hospital building, that we have seen for many years.

      EUROPEAN SECURITY (CONFERENCE)
      Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister what action he has taken to prepare a conference on European Secu-
      1642
      rity as proposed in the joint communication published at the end of his Moscow visit in January, 1968, and after Mr. Kosygin's visit to London in February, 1967; and why the proposed conference has not so far been held.
      The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said in reply to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) on 28th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 929–31.]
      Sir C. Osborne: It is now more than two years since the Prime Minister himself issued this statement in London promising that such a conference would be called. Has he made any attempt to call such a conference? If so, why has he failed? When is he to make a statement on this important issue?
      The Prime Minister: I have answered questions on this subject on a number of occasions. Following the communiqué in 1967, when we said that we were ready to hold such a conference if properly prepared and if agreement could be reached about what countries would be there, I have had further discussions with Mr. Kosygin about it, and the hon. Member will be aware of the initiative taken by N.A.T.O. in Iceland last year. Since then—and he cannot have forgotten this—there has been Czechoslovakia, which considerably set back the prospect of a meeting of this kind.
      Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the difficult situation which has arisen as a result of Czechoslovakia, it is important that the British Government should make every effort to try to reach a better relationship with the East leading to the security conference which is still essential to peace in Europe?
      The Prime Minister: This is our policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is now in Moscow. Yesterday he had a meeting with Mr. Kosygin, the first meeting of this kind, I think, since Czechoslovakia, where we are trying to pick up some of the important contacts in technology, for example. My hon. Friend will also have seen the

      1643
      declaration, made by the N.A.T.O. conference at its 20th anniversary celebrations, of its desire in a suitable way, bilaterally and in other ways, to ease tension between East and West. However, there is no doubt that Czechoslovakia was a severe shock to the process which was going on.

      MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
      Mr. Brooksasked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce the date on which the transfer of Ministerial responsibility for the education of mentally-handicapped children in England and Wales will be effected.
      The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 8th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 128.]
      Mr. Brooks: Are any difficulties arising in the speedy implementation of these proposals? Are any difficulties arising in the implementation of the Seebohm Report for similar reasons of professional demarcation?
      The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any difficulties. The consultation paper asking for the views of all bodies affected has been sent to more than 20 local authority, professional and other bodies which have been asked to submit their views by the end of June, and I hope that after that we shall be able to proceed to make the necessary arrangements and ultimately to introduce the necessary legislation. A great deal of work is being done on the Seebohm recommendations. I am not aware that any special difficulties have arisen, but there is a need for consultation and not much progress can be made until we see the future shape of local government following the report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that reply mean that the Prime Minister can give no estimate when this welcome reform will become effective in the institutions concerned?
      The Prime Minister: No, Sir. But we can begin to make progress as soon as
      1644
      we have had the replies from the bodies consulted which are due to reply by the end of June.

      COLONEL OJUKWU
      Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister on what date he first heard from Colonel Ojukwu, or his representative, that he was willing to meet him.
      The Prime Minister: The 26th of March.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not that reply mean that Colonel Ojukwu was given unreasonably short notice to attend the meeting requested by the Prime Minister, and was not that a great pity?
      The Prime Minister: It was a great pity that the meeting did not take place but the date 26th March was the day before I left London to go to Lagos and it was clear at that time, as I have told the House, that the meeting would have to take place outside the area then controlled by Colonel Ojukwu. The time was a bit tight, but, on the information I had been given, it would have been possible to meet on the following Wednesday, and I offered to fly back from Addis Ababa to any suitable place in West Africa to meet him. It was unfortunate that the meeting did not take place.
      Mr. Henig: As the ebb and flow in this war is continuing, has my right hon. Friend any proposal which he thinks might help to bring the two sides together once more in a final bid to stop this disastrous conflict?
      The Prime Minister: I have told my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that, so far as outside intervention is required to bring the two sides together, it would come best of all from African sources and, indeed, best from the Consultative Committee of the O.A.U. Since I last answered questions on this subject, the House will have seen with great regret that such progress as was made at Monrovia at the recent O.A.U. conference did not lead to a settlement and that, unfortunately, Colonel Ojukwu's representatives did not feel able to accept the proposals and sit down with the Federal representatives, although the proposals

      1645
      were accepted by the Nigerian Government. We can therefore only now leave it—
      Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Waffle.
      The Prime Minister: This tragedy of a war in Nigeria is a matter with which the House is concerned, even if the hon. and gallant Member is not. He can hardly describe anything to do with this war as waffle.
      Therefore, as I have said—
      Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Get on with it. Do not waste time.
      The Prime Minister: I would get on if the hon. and gallant Member did not interrupt. I would have finished long ago. What I would have said was that it must be for the O.A.U. now to pursue the Monrovia formula.

      PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (REPORTS)
      Mr. Speedasked the Prime Minister from what areas of the country representations were sent to him on the probable consequences of the reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.
      The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 29th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 1155–7.]
      Mr. Speed: Is the Prime Minister aware that the English Report has been with the Home Secretary for four weeks and the Scottish Report has been with the Secretary of State for Scotland for nearly three weeks? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, on precedent, these Reports and the Orders in Council should be laid before Parliament as soon as possible? Would he speak to his right hon. Friends about the matter?
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will treat this as a matter of urgency, as he is required to do. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this question—the great growth in his constituency, what he said the other night, and what he has written to the Home Secretary about it. Whether it affects his area or not, as I told the House on 17th April, the Report of the Red-
      1646
      cliffe-Maud Commission is expected almost immediately, and it will need to be studied in this connection.
      Dr. Winstanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the consequences of not implementing the Boundary Commission's recommendations before the next General Election would be that, after the election, five hon. Members would have to represent constituencies with electoral rolls considerably in excess of 100,000? Since the national average is about 50,000, is not this a contradiction of the democratic processes?
      The Prime Minister: This point, to gether with the correlated point on very small constituencies, is obviously one of the most relevant features in the situation. As I have said, the Reports must be studied, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement when he can.
      Mr. Hogg: Since it is the Home Secretary's statutory duty to act as soon as practicable, cannot we have a date?
      The Prime Minister: I referred to my right hon. Friend's duty. I said that he would wish to do this and that it was his statutory duty to do it. He cannot give a date, but he will do it as quickly as possible. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will be aware not only of the complexity of the Reports but about the relevance of perhaps wide and far-reaching local authority boundary changes.
      Mr. Heath: Two points arise. The Prime Minister says that the Act lays the duty on the Home Secretary. That has no relationship whatever to any Report of any Royal Commission. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Thursday the Leader of the House enunciated the doctrine that they should be kept until all three could be laid together. This is not in accordance with the Act, which places on the Home Secretary the duty of laying a Boundary Commission Report as soon as may be when it is received. When will the Home Secretary carry out his duty under the Act?
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend answered a Question on this on Monday. He has this duty. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly fair. My

      1647
      right hon. Friend must not merely publish but report as soon as may be on his findings, and this he will do. Although it may be convenient for the House to have the three together, my right hon. Friend is not required to hold up one for the other two, and he has no intention of doing so.
      Mr. Heath: It is much more than a question of his not being required to hold them up. He is required to lay them individually as they are received. Will the Home Secretary do this?
      The Prime Minister: I said that my right hon. Friend is considering them and will lay them and will certainly not hold up one for the publication of another. He is required to consider them; he is considering them. The right hon. Gentleman would want that to happen. That is what is happening.

      QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
      Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? If Questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister are dealt with by, say, five minutes past three, is it necessary to play out time with supplementaries and points of order until 3.15? Would it not be right to call the Prime Minister's Questions as soon as the other Questions are finished?
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must refresh his memory. I attempted to do that. One could not, however, do it before quarter past three unless one was sure that the hon. Members who had not only the first Question, but the second and third Questions, were in their place.
      It would be wrong if an hon. Member who had a Question down to the Prime Minister for answer between quarter-past and half-past three lost it because the Prime Minister's Questions were taken earlier. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker thinks about these problems.
      Mr. Heath: I am sure that we are all grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding us about the position concerning the Prime Minister's Questions. But is it not the case, as described in paragraph 55 of the Manual of Procedure, that if the Questions are exhausted before half-past
      1648
      three you then return to the beginning of the Order Paper and call those hon. Members who were not present when their Question was called?
      Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That has not happened in my time. I must look it up. Going back on Questions is something of which I have heard from long-serving Members of the House. I will certainly look at the matter.
      Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. You will notice from the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, that
      "Questions to the Prime Minister will begin at 3.15 p.m."
      Could not taking them earlier happen only if the Prime Minister were present and wished them to begin earlier, otherwise they must begin at 3.15? Is not that correct?
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is answering the point of order which I answered some time ago. We should not take the same point of order twice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 19TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Transport (London) Bill.
Motions on the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 3) Order, the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme, and on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY, 20TH MAY, and WEDNESDAY, 21ST MAY—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 22ND MAY—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
FRIDAY, 23RD MAY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment.
Mr. Heath: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the date of presentation of the Industrial Relations Bill? The last that he was able to tell us was that he hoped that it would be presented before Whitsun. We now learn from the Press that apparently an arrangement has been made with the T.U.C. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what it is.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State be making a statement later in today's debate about the level of contributions to the insurance scheme which will be necessary as a result of raising pensions, or will he be waiting until next week for another well-timed announcement?
Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be making a statement in today's debate.
It is true that I thought that the Bill would be presented before Whitsun. But that will not happen now. It will be presented after Whitsun.
Mr. Heath: As an arrangement has now been made with the T.U.C., cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly when the Bill will be presented?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am sorry, but I cannot. The House will be informed. There must be time for all hon. Members, on both sides, to have full opportunity to digest its contents before we proceed with Second Reading.
Mr. Carter-Jones: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 200, standing in my name and the names of over 100 right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, which was inspired by the work of Megan du Boisson, who was killed in an accident this week, as a result of which many hon. Members, on both sides, will feel a sense of grievous loss, because she was always gentle in manner and vigorous in deed? Would it not be appropriate to debate this matter next week?
[That this House applauds the skills and technologies involved in producing the Anglo-French Concorde aircraft and the United States and Russian space programmes, but regrets that the same urgency is not always shown in applying known technologies to assist handicapped and disabled people of all ages to lead a
1650
fuller, more independent and comfortable life.]
Mr. Pearl: My hon. Friend's Motion, which has been signed by many hon. Members, draws attention to the great work done by Mrs. du Boisson for the disabled. Without having a debate, hon. Members who add their names to the Motion are paying a real tribute to her work, and the House appreciates this.
Mr. Dean: Has the Leader of the House seen the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services saying that the increased money from the charges for teeth and spectacles will be used for comprehensive schools? Is he aware that this is clean contrary to what the Secretary of State said on 5th May? In view of this—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot enter into a debate now. He may ask for a debate on the statement made by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dean: May we have a debate on this next week, or, at least, a statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services, to clear up the confusion?
Mr. Pearl: The hon. Member should await my hon. Friend's statement this evening.
Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology has recently published a formidable Report on defence research? Will he provide an early opportunity for this important subject to be debated?
Mr. Peart: I have looked carefully at this important Report. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Committee, and his colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will have to study it carefully. I cannot promise a specific time for a debate.
Lord Balniel: I understood that we had been informed through the usual channels that the Secretary of State for Social Services was not taking part in today's debate. May we have an assurance that he will be taking part?
Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Member wishes my right hon. Friend to participate. He will.
Mr. Dickens: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 310, standing in my name and the names of over 60 hon. Members on this side, calling for a debate on negotiations with the International Monetary Fund?
[That this House believes that an opportunity should be provided for a debate on the present negotiations with the International Monetary Fund before a Letter of Intent to the Fund is finalised.]
May I explain to my right hon. Friends that the intention behind the Motion is not to have a detailed statement from the Government on the progress of negotiations, but to have a full debate in the House so that the Government can listen to the views expressed by hon. Members on this very important matter?
Mr. Peart: I have noted the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend and his colleagues, but I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the House yesterday.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the promised debate on the Order increasing the charges for teeth and spectacles will take place? Ought not hon. Members opposite to know quickly when they will be called upon to eat their sacred cow?
Mr. Peart: Not next week.
Mr. Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 307, concerning the proposed closure by Hawker Siddeley of the factory at Shakespeare Street, Watford, of S. G. Brown?
[That this House notes with concern the proposed closure, by the Hawker Siddeley Group, of the S. G. Brown factory at Shakespeare Street, Watford, which will deprive the nation of the technical know-how about gyroscopic compasses and make over 500 people, many of them highly-skilled technicians, redundant; and calls upon the Government to take some positive action to avert this closure, either by re-nationalisation, or by aid from the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation or by using the same method as was used in the case of Fairfields.]
As a full debate was held in the House when the Conservative Government proposed to denationalise the company in 1959, and the Conservative Gov-
1652
ernment gave an assurance to the House of continuity of employment for the work-people there, does not my right hon. Friend think that a full debate is called for by the present tragic situation?
Mr. Peart: I have noted the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend, who represents Watford. I agree with him that this is a very important matter. He is right to draw my attention to it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is continuing his discussions with the representatives. I will see that he is made aware of what has been said today and that he takes careful note of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Leader of the House recall that last week he undertook to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the crisis created by the decision of over 11,000 qualified and experienced teachers in Scotland not to re-register with the General Teaching Council and, consequently, to face immediate dismissal, and to ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement? As we have had no statement, and the crisis continues, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we will have a statement from his right hon. Friend before we rise for the Whitsun Recess?
Mr. Peart: Since the hon. Member raised this matter, I have looked carefully into it and conveyed his views to my right hon. Friend. I see that there is a Written Question down for answer tomorrow and I believe that the hon. Member himself has a Question down for oral answer on Wednesday. Let us wait for the Answers.
Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend will recall the White Paper on the resources of the sea bed, which was produced under his own guidance. Can he tell us whether he will provide an opportunity to discuss this Report as well as the question of negotiations in the United Nations on control of sea bed resources?
Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter and I thank him for what he has said about the White Paper, for which I had some responsibility. I cannot, however, provide time next week. But some day, perhaps—who knows?
Mr. Hastings: When can we expect a further statement from the Foreign Secretary about the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke? May we be assured that the Minister of Technology, who is now in Moscow, will bear his fate in mind, too?
Mr. Peart: Yes. I note what the hon. Member has said. It is right that the Foreign Office should be aware of the feeling of the House about this matter.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I return to the question of the Motion concerning the proposed loan from the International Monetary Fund? Does not my right hon. Friend consider that this is the kind of major international question on which the Government should hear the views of the House before they decide on a policy which may be of vast importance to the nation?
Mr. Peart: I do not wish to repeat myself. I thought that I gave an effective reply to my hon. Friend about this.
Sir C. Osborne: As one who signed that Motion, together with many hon. Members opposite, may I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on this matter, because hon. Members, on both sides, are concerned lest the Letter of Intent includes conditions that would be generally unacceptable to the people of the country? Before the Letter is signed, surely this House should express its opinion upon it.
Mr. Peart: I would hope that we will have no debate on it next week.
Sir C. Osborne: Why not?
Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would make a statement when he is in a position to do so. Hon. Members should be patient.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On the question of the I.M.F., will the Leader of the House try to get the Chancellor to make another statement next week to explain why, on Tuesday, he said that no approach had been made to the I.M.F., whereas an official statement was issued from our Embassy in Washington on the same day saying that there was an official approach? May we have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman next week to tell us which of those two is right?
Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement. He said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would make a statement when he feels it right and proper to do so.
Dr. Winstanley: Has the Leader of the House received any intimation from his right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip of his intention to move for the issue of the writ for the Birmingham. Ladywood by-election next week?
Mr. Peart: No. I will leave it to my right hon. Friend to do that. It is not my responsibility.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week or in the near future for my Motion on mergers and take-overs, because of the unemployment which is liable to be caused?
[That this House is of the opinion that, in view of the recent growth by the public in the shareholding of companies and of company takeovers and mergers, the Government, in the national interest, should set up a public inquiry into the relevant potentialities of each of the companies to be taken over or merged before such take-over or merger and of the effect of any such proposed take-over or merger on, not only the shareholders, but also on the numbers and kinds of employees in each of the companies and on the British economy.]
Mr. Peart: I know that this is a very important matter. My hon. Friend presses me on many matters generally of Scottish interest, but this is of United Kingdom interest. But we cannot debate it next week.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what has happened to the Merchant Shipping Bill, which seems to have disappeared? Is he aware that we in the North of England in the shipping areas want to hear a great deal from the Government on shipping and the Upper Clyde shipbuilders, and heaven knows what?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Lady says that the Merchant Shipping Bill has disappeared; it has not yet appeared, but it will.
Mr. Peyton: Does the Leader of the House realise that on the negotiations with the International Monetary Fund he is not being asked simply to repeat himself; that would be stupid indeed. He is being asked to give the Government an opportunity to present to the House of Commons their present state of mind, if that is not too indecent.
Mr. Peart: I have already replied to that question. The Chancellor will make a statement when it is possible for him to do so.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On Motion 307, on the closure of S. G. Brown, as the hon. Gentleman who made the announcement and initiated the debate in the House, may I ask the Leader of the House to bear in mind that this firm would never have closed if the Government had not slashed the defence orders and aircraft orders?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merit. The hon. Member may ask for a day on which to put his point of view.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I support the suggestion put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite that there should be an early debate on the merits of the case.
Mr. Peart: I replied sympathetically to my hon. Friend, and, if the hon. Gentleman supports him, I think that he will be satisfied with my reply.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Amendment to Motion 296, which was signed by 137 loyal Government supporters?
[Line 2, leave out from 'Party' to end of line 4 and add 'notes how often and easily these decisions have been disregarded; restates the constitutional principle that no British Government can be bound by the decisions of outside bodies; agrees that the sick and disabled who are unable to pay for medical services should have these provided free of charge, but repudiates the idea that these charges should be paid by the American and/or German taxpayer through further International Monetary Fund loans; further notes that the proposed spectacles and false teeth charges by Her Majesty's Government will save only £3½ million in a full year and are less than one hun-
1656
dredth the economies that Her Majesty's Government will have to impose to get the nation out of its current overseas deficit of £419 million per annum; and would welcome details of the other economies needed for the remaining £415½ million deficit'.]
Will he find time to debate the Amendment?
Mr. Peart: Not next week.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Leader of the House aware of the continued anxiety in the homes of 14,000 Clydeside shipyard workers, and is it still his hope that a statement will be made next week?
Mr. Peart: Yes, I hope so.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: As the Leader of the House promised to give the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill next week, and has now said that this will not be done until an unspecified date after the Whitsuntide Recess, will he say whether the terms of the Bill then will be the same as they would have been had they been announced before Whitsuntide?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is a very skilful politician, but he is being a little devious now.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I understand the reluctance of the Government to debate the increased charges for spectacles and false teeth, should we not debate very soon, and certainly next week, the interesting statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services that from now on the Health Service is to finance the education service. Should not the serious constitutional implications of this be discussed?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give time next week.
Mr. Fortescue: Will the Leader of the House say when we shall have the opportunity to debate the Prayer to annul the Order increasing air navigation charges at certain municipal airports?
Mr. Peart: Yes, I will provide time.
Mr. Fortescue: When?
Mr. Peart: It will be after the Whitsuntide Recess.
Mr. Ridley: In view of its constitutional importance, will the Leader of the

1657
House say whether the Prime Minister will make a statement next week about the setting-up of an inner Cabinet and who will and who will not be members of it?
Mr. McMaster: Will the Leader of the House provide time before the Whitsun Recess to decide the fate of the 12 British citizens who are held in prison by the Chinese, many of whom have been detained for more than a year, with no British consular access?
Mr. Peart: I agree that this is a serious and important matter. I do press my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this. He is aware of the feelings of the hon. Member and of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1963 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend sections 37 and 38 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Hugh Jenkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
  ENTERTAINMENT EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
  Bill to regulate fee-charging employment agencies in entertainment; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Hugh Jenkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 166.]
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
  Bill to amend the law relating to divorce and matrimonial causes in England and Wales, presented by Mr. Bruce Campbell; supported by Sir Lionel Heald, and Dame Irene Ward; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

  HOUSING PROGRAMME
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the failure of Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their housing programme; and deplores the impact of Government policies upon the costs of mortgages and house-building.
  Mr. Speaker: May I announce to the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
  Mr. Walker: During recent months we have had several debates about the failure of the Government's housing programme. Today, I believe for the first time, the Government have decided to move an Amendment to our Motion. The significant thing about the Amendment is that it does nothing to answer our charge that the Government have failed to fulfil their programme. It does not comment upon the rise in the cost of mortgages and it does nothing to counteract the charge of the very substantial increase in the cost of house-building. It links together a series of Government measures and actions which the Government hope will collectively provide them with an excuse for their failure to fulfil their housing target, to keep down the cost of mortgages and to keep down the price of houses.
  Before dealing with the Motion, I will refer to what is contained in the Amendment. It contains several comments about the improvement grants and matters contained in the recent Housing Bill. As the Minister knows, both sides of the House welcomed the Bill, and I hope that he will agree that both sides of the Standing Committee were constructive and helpful in the passage of the Bill. We approve of the spirit of what the Government endeavoured to do in that Bill, although we have criticisms of the detail.
  The first comment in the Amendment on the number of houses built has the general theme, "We as a Government

  1659
  have built more houses than the Tories built." Probably every Government this century has been able to claim that; it is not an original claim. Doubtless, in the brief for his speech the Minister has the usual figures showing how many more houses the Government completed in their first four years than were completed in the last four years of Conservative Government. If one compares those statistics with the increase in house-building during the first four years of the Tory Government and the last four years of the Labour Government in 1951, the graph of improvement is devastatingly better. That sort of argument will not provide comfort to those who voted Labour at the last election in the belief that there would be more houses at cheaper prices and mortgages at lower cost.
  The Minister has the audacity to mention the rent rebate schemes, and I suggest that the Government have responsibly encouraged those. If the Government have encouraged them nationally by guidance to local authorities, the Labour Party and the country have fought them like mad. In the recent local authority elections, the Labour Party at Jarrow put through the letter box of every council house in that constituency on the eve of poll a leaflet saying that at a special meeting of Jarrow Council on 9th December, 1965, Councillor Mr. Bolam moved a motion as follows:
  "'That the Council start to operate in the Borough of Jarrow a differential rent scheme.' Voting for, six Conservatives; voting against, 16 Labour. This was defeated by a Labour majority. We leave it to you to realise what will happen if the Tories should happen to get control."
  Those are the two faces which the Labour Party puts on rent rebate schemes.
  The Government Amendment refers to the domestic subsidy as something which has assisted ratepayers—one might say at the expense of commerce and industry—in spite of the fact that domestic rates are 25 per cent. higher than they were when Labour came to power. And there is every indication that there will be a substantial rise in the coming year.
  As for the volume of houses, which is a matter I shall be exploring in the de-
  1660
  bate, the Government came to power on the firm pledge of 500,000 houses a year. I could spend a good deal of time reciting the great promises made by the Prime Minister, by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government and, indeed, by every Labour candidate, during that election campaign. I inquire of the Minister why the position has changed so rapidly.
  I wish to examine the shifting that has taken place in the Labour Party on this subject. During the election the country was given the firm pledge of 500,000 houses. In December, 1966, the Prime Minister, at the Dispatch Box, challenged whether they were still to fulfil the target, repeated the firm pledge of 500,000 houses.
  In September, 1967, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government proclaimed, "We are on target". The target was still 500,000 houses. At the time of devaluation in November, 1967, the Prime Minister announced in the House that the priority programme of housing would not be affected by devaluation—a firm, categorical statement. Then, in January, 1968, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and said that there would be an adjustment of the 500,000 target as a result of devaluation. That contradicted what the Prime Minister had said.
  The Prime Minister was then questioned on this topic. When he was asked by how much the programme would be affected, he made a statement typical of the Prime Minister, in that when one looked at the small print it could be interpreted in a different way. But there is no doubt what he wished to convey to the country. For in that statement he gave the clear indication that in his view the target would fall short by 16,500 houses. To quote his words in the House on 18th January:
  "On the question of the housing programme, in relation to targets the matter has been dealt with by my hon. Friends and myself. There is a cut of 16,500 houses in each of the two years, as compared with the 500,000 target. It is our view that to this extent it will be that much more difficult to reach the 500,000 target; it will be 16,000 houses more difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1947.]
  If the Prime Minister's words hold any validity today, I challenge the Minister of Housing to state categorically that the

  1661
  new target will be over 483,500. If it is that target the Minister knows that with the present position of housing starts it will be quite impossible to fulfil.
  From that moment onwards the Government started to shift their position. The number of housing starts began to go into decline. Now we are seeing statements from the present Minister that, as a result of devaluation and a reappraisal of the nation's housing needs, we no longer have a 500,000 target. If he has made the reappraisal, let us have the new target.
  When challenged on this the Minister says, "We are unwilling to project the target that far ahead." Yet the Government were willing to project the target five years ahead when they wanted the votes of the country. There was a firm pledge of 500,000 made by the Prime Minister which he said was not a pledge lightly given—a pledge which they have broken. They now try to provide excuses as to why there has been a reappraisal. Let us have today from the Minister a clear statement of what is the revised housing target.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to what is actually happening to the programme, and I assure the House that the figures are startingly bad. The Government rest on the fact that last year's completions were a record and went over the 400,000 figure. Ministers continue to make speeches up and down the country on this theme.
  The important consideration for the future is the number of starts. Let us look at housing starts year by year since Labour came in. Housing starts in 1964, the last year of a Conservative Government, were 426,000; in 1965, they were 392,000; and, in 1966, 379,000. Then, in 1967—due primarily to the betterment levy, which provoked developers to starts in the phase before the levy arose to avoid paying the levy, as they were entitled to do—there was a sudden boost in starts to 447,000. It is that boost in the starts which produced the good completion figures of last year.
  Look at what has happened since then. In 1967, 447,000; in 1968, 394,000—a drop of 50,000. That would be bad enough, but look at what is happening during the first quarter of this year. The starts during that quarter were only
  1662
  70,000—20,000 down on the first quarter last year. Indeed, the number of housing starts in the first quarter of this year, by a Government pledged to build 500,000 houses a year, was 27,000 less than in the first quarter of 1964, when the Conservatives were in office. This is the sort of drop which we are seeing in housing starts all the time.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Would the hon. Member agree to break down those figures into figures for private houses and those for local authority houses?
  Mr. Walker: As far as these figures are concerned, local authority housing in the first quarter of 1964, under the Conservatives, amounted to 45,000. For the first quarter of this year the figure is 35,000.
  Mr. Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: No, I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman may not like the answer I am giving, but he must listen.
  For the first quarter of 1964, under the Conservatives, there were 45,000 local authority houses; under the Socialists, 35,000. As to private enterprise houses in the first quarter, 54,000 under the Conservatives; under the Socialists 35,000. They are the figures of starts.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: The hon. Member earlier gave the figures of starts in 1966, 1967 and 1968. For the purposes of comparison would he give a breakdown as between local authority and private housing starts in 1967–68, which is a most significant figure?
  Mr. Walker: There is significance in the figures. Starts both in public and private building are going down year by year. They went down from 213,000 to 194,000 and from 233,000 to 200,000. They are the figures.
  Mr. W. Howie rose—
  Mr. Walker: In all fairness, I have given way twice.
  Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that we are engaged on a debate.
  Mr. Walker: I realise that these figures must be depressing for hon. Members opposite, because in every sphere of starts they show a decline.

  1663
  I will compare what has happened in the housing programme with what people were promised by the Labour Government. The words of the Prime Minister were that the housing programme would go up year by year until, by 1970, it reached 500,000 a year. If he had fulfilled that promise and achieved that objective as compared with what he will achieve under present targets, the Labour Government will have built 261,000 more houses by 1970 than they are to build in the present programme.
  They have, therefore, fallen short of their target by a large figure. The Minister is often happy to quote an example of town populations. They have fallen short by an equivalent to the whole population of Bradford, Ipswich, Colchester and Worcester—a name which I add with some pleasure. A population equal to the size of those four towns and cities will not be rehoused by 1970 but would have been rehoused had the Labour Government fulfilled their housing promise to build 500,000 houses a year. That is the extent to which they have failed.
  Let us look at our second charge—that about mortgages. This difficulty will severely affect the programme over the coming months. The problem is whether people can afford to buy houses. We know the promises. There is no need for me again to give a recital of all the Ministerial promises of lower mortgage rates. Whether the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said 3 per cent. or not, every other member of the present Cabinet, without exception, promised lower interest rates for house purchase. All they have done is to introduce the mortgage option scheme—and 94 per cent. of the people with mortgages have decided that that has no attraction to them at all. For 94 per cent. of the people with mortgages the Government have done nothing but increase the mortgage rate year by year.
  The true problem arises when the relationship between the cost of a mortgage and the average industrial wage gets so much out of line that the person with an average industrial wage cannot buy a home of his own. I will illustrate to what extent this has happened. The average price of a new house in October, 1964, was £3,500. Today, it is £4,500. The
  1664
  mortgage rate then was 6 per cent. and today it is 8½ per cent. Average industrial earnings in October, 1964, were £18 6s. 4d. a week. Today, the figure is £23. The monthly repayments needed to repay a mortgage for the average-priced new house in October, 1964, were £18 2s. 2d. Today, the figure is £29 8s. That is the difference. Industrial earnings have risen by 27 per cent. and the cost of mortgage repayments on the average-priced new house has risen by 60 per cent.
  Hon. Members know that when a man asks a building society for a mortgage they frequently suggest the formula that the weekly wage should equal the monthly repayments. That is the most common yardstick which they use. On the figures which I have given, in 1964 it was possible for the man to buy a house—industrial wages £18 6s. 4d. and mortgage repayments £18 2s. 2d. It was possible. In 1969, after four years of the Socialist Government, industrial wages are £23 a week and mortgage repayments are £29 8s. a month. It is impossible. That is the problem which will arise.
  What do these people do? They cannot get a mortgage from a building society. They can go to the council chambers and put them names on the housing list. They add to the housing list. If they are newly married, with perhaps one child or no children, they have little chance of being rehoused from many of the lists throughout the country. If they have children they almost certainly cannot obtain privately-rented accommodation. That is the desperate plight facing thousands of young couples after four years of the Labour Government. They are given no hope of buying a home of their own and they have no chance of getting a council house because of the length of the queues in many areas.
  We see what happens: they move into overcrowded conditions, families are broken up and there is despair. That will happen on an increasing scale as long as these conditions continue. The broken promises about mortgages are well known to everybody, but the extent to which this will aggravate the housing problem and the extent to which it will slow down the number of new housing starts in the months to come will do immense damage to the solution of the housing problem of the country.

  1665
  The third part of the Motion deals with the cost of house building. The Government have done nothing to ease that. They have added burdens constantly to the building industry. They have added the burden of the enormous cost of borrowing. They have added the burden of Selective Employment Tax which has penalised this industry from the beginning more than most. It has been wrongly rated as a service industry from the beginning, and considerable damage has been done. All the various provisions of the last Budget, it is estimated, will probably add £100 to the average price of a new house. That is a further burden on the £1,000 per house which the Government have already added to the price of the average new house since they have been in power.
  The Government probably won more votes at the last election on the promise of more houses, cheaper houses and lower mortgage rates than on any other single issue. Yet if we judge the Government by those criteria, they have failed to fulfil their promise on the number of houses to be built, they have blatantly failed to fulfil their promise on the cost of mortgages and they have failed to provide either cheaper houses or cheaper land. Their instrument of achieving cheaper land was the Land Commission, and all that that has done is to put up the price of land and to cause a great deal of hardship throughout the country.
  That is the combined effect of their failures on the major issues of housing. I grant that the Government have endeavoured to pass some important legislation. I do not underestimate provisions concerning compulsory purchase, better compensation, improvement grants and similar provisions, but at the basic core of the housing problem they have failed miserably.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I agree completely with the hon. Member about the tragedy of young families and the difficulties which they have to bear. But does he not acknowledge that the Labour Government have built 2 million houses since they came into power? If so, is not that the equivalent of the population of the City of London?
  Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman likes those comparisons. But the Labour Government promised to build
  1666
  far more. When they came into office they promised to build 500,000 houses a year by 1970.
  That was a promise which the Minister as late as 1967 said was a realistic promise and programme. Why did he say that it was realistic? Because when the Labour Government took over the Ministry of Housing there were 434,000 houses under construction. That was what they inherited from the Conservative Government. But except for the one period under the impetus of the threat of betterment levy, each year there has been a decline in new housing starts.
  Every Government this century could boast that they built more houses than the previous Government, and for a nation such as ours I hope that that will always remain true. The measure of the present Government's failure is that by 1970 they will have built 231,000 houses fewer than they promised to build when they addressed the electorate at the last election.
  The judgment can best be expressed by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who was Minister of Public Building and Works and who now occupies the position of Chief Whip and Patronage Secretary. He concluded his speech in a housing debate in the House on 9th March, 1966, with these words:
  "I want the country to look at the number of houses which we have built, the efforts we have made and are making to ensure that we achieve our realistic target of 500,000 houses by 1970, and our determination to do what is necessary for the people in greatest need. I ask no more than that the country pass its judgment on that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2177.]
  I ask the same.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the success of its housing policy, as a result of which it is anticipated that by the end of 1969 two million new houses will have been completed since the General Election of 1964; on its reform of town and country planning; on its welcome proposal now before Parliament for the payment of some generous improvement grants on old houses, for the speeding up of slum clearance, and for the removal of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas

  1667
  whom previous Conservative administrations failed to help; on its effective action against escalating rents and its encouragement of long-overdue rent rebate schemes; on the provision of a domestic rate subsidy for the current year of 1s. 3d. in the £ in England and Wales, 2s. 6d. in the £ in Scotland; on its recent improvement of the rate rebate scheme introduced by the present Government and of very great value to ratepayers most in need of help; on the increased assistance it has given to voluntary housing associations providing housing by improvement and conversion; and on its provision of option mortgages and the help towards home ownership".
  Perhaps I might begin by correcting the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on one point. This is not the first time that we have tabled a reasoned Amendment. Indeed, we tabled a reasoned Amendment on 19th March and we have repeated that practice on this occasion.
  This is the third time in the same number of months that we have debated housing. We also had a party political broadcast by the hon. Gentleman which, I must say, was a performance of remarkable, if rather exaggerated, virtuosity.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us yet another opportunity of describing what the Government have done, are doing, and will do in housing. I am grateful, because I welcome any opportunity of drawing attention to the magnitude of the housing problem. That is why I welcome—and I think all hon. Member's welcome—the activities of bodies like Shelter, because they help to rouse the conscience of our people to the difficulties of the housing situation.
  The size of the housing programme depends upon the strength of the economy. If our people are to will the end of a larger programe they will have to will the means as well. The Notting Hill report—I am grateful to Mr. George Clark and his colleagues who worked on it—shows that there is no room for complacency. I will not expand on the Notting Hill Report, because there is to be an Adjournment debate on it tonight, and I have arranged to meet the local authorities concerned in the near future. I simply say that when the Opposition turn the searchlight on the Government they should also examine the number of Conservative local authorities whose house building records are less than inspiring.
  Mr. David Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend say, first, that the Report showed the value of the Rent Act 1965, which gave security of tenure? Secondly, will he consider extending the Rent Act to cover furnished occupation in multi-occupied premises, because there are a number of racketeering landlords who use furnished accommodation to escape the security of tenure provision?
  Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. The Report raises a large number of matters. Before going into it in detail, I think that it would be right to discuss it with the local authorities concerned. I have already had a preliminary talk with Mr. Clark. Certainly, we will give the most careful consideration to the various suggestions that have been made, while emphasising that the basic responsibility rests with the London boroughs and also with the Greater London Council.
  The hon. Member for Worcester showed some reluctance and disquiet at the fact that I might refer to previous statistics. I hope that the House will forgive me if I try to put the statistics in their context.
  It is right to remind the House that between 1961 and 1964 the number of new houses completed in the public sector was 528,700. Between 1965 and 1968 the number of new houses completed in the public sector was 744,200. That is an increase of 215,500 or 40·8 per cent.
  Turning to the private sector, between 1961 and 1964 there were 745,300 new houses completed. Between 1965 and 1968 the number was 841,600. That is an increase of 96,300 or 12·9 per cent. The total number built between 1961 and 1964 was 1,274,000. Between 1965 and 1968 it was 1,586,000. That is an increase of 312,000, or 24 per cent. over the preceding four years. I have no doubt that when the five-year figures are available they will show a still bigger increase.
  I should like the House to remember that these houses are being built to a significantly higher standard than the houses completed between 1961 and 1964. If we had been prepared to continue to tolerate the poorer standards which characterised house building under the Conservative Government, I believe that we

  1669
  would have completed between 50,000 and 100,000 more.
  I remind the House, before leaving this point, that during that time we have achieved record figures for slum clearance as well. If that is a record of failure, I can only say that nothing fails like success. If that is a failure, the more failures there are the better it will be.
  I turn now to the immediate situation. The hon. Member for Worcester referred to the number of starts and the number of completions in the first three months of this year. In the first quarter of 1969 there were 35,500 starts in the public sector. In the first quarter of last year the figure was 40,000, so we are down 4,500. In the private sector, the number of starts was 35,400. In 1968 it was 50,500, so we are down 15,100. The total of the two is 70,900 this year compared with 90,500 in 1968—a drop of 19·6 per cent.
  Completions, also, are disappointing. In the public sector they are down from 45,000 to 40,900. In the private sector they are down from 52,600 to 42,600—a total drop of 14,100. I have described those figures as disappointing, and I am prepared to give the reasons why.
  Mr. Graham Page: By mistake, I think that the Minister said there was a drop of 19·6 per cent. I think he really meant a drop of 19,600.
  Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry. I certainly meant 19,600.
  The reasons are, I think, well known to the House. The weather in February and March was wetter and colder than usual, and foundations cannot be laid when there is frost. The effect of Ronan Point was also serious, and there had been a slow rate of approvals until the last quarter of 1968.
  But the interesting thing about approvals in 1968 was that in the last quarter 75,000 dwellings were approved for tender, which is the highest figure for any quarter. This massive bunching of approvals in the last quarter of the year will lead to an upturn in starts later this year.
  Mr. Peter Walker: To see whether the trend is continuing, may I ask the Minister to give the figure for approvals in
  1670
  the first quarter? Was it not very much down on the first quarter of last year?
  Mr. Greenwood: Approvals in the first quarter of this year?
  Mr. Peter Walker: Yes.
  Mr. Greenwood: It is true that the figure was down. I am coming to that point in a moment.
  The House should know that last year the whole of the English programme of approvals for 1968 was taken up in full and that the pipeline of houses approved but not yet started was recharged by 75,000 approvals at the end of 1968.
  The hon. Member for Worcester mentioned approvals. In the first quarter of this year, approvals were running at a low rate. That was partly because schemes which would otherwise have been approved in January had to be advanced into December, 1968, to take up the shortfall of 7,000 in London's allocation, and partly because some authorities were holding back schemes awaiting revision of the cost yardstick.
  The House will be pleased to know, or at least my hon. Friends will be pleased to know, that the weekly rate of approvals picked up appreciably to over 2,000 a week for the first of three weeks after Easter, and nearly 4,000 in the fourth week. The low rate of approvals so far in 1969 does, however, mean that starts in the second half will be below what one would hope they would be. The comletions rate in the first quarter of the year was low also, and I have said what the reason was for that.
  In the private sector the disappointing figures for the first quarter reflected not only the bad weather, but the mortgage stringency which characterised the early months of this year. If mortgages become easier to come by, house sales should pick up, and could quickly lead to an improved rate of starts. The low level of private completions in the first quarter of 1969 is directly related to the relatively low level of mortgage commitments from September to December, 1968.
  The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of play with the figures of 70,900 starts in the first quarter of this year, and 83,500 completions in the same period. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a little selective in his statistics. I should like

  1671
  to compare our figure, which I say is a disapopinting one, of 70,900 starts in the first quarter with the figure of 53,000 starts in the first quarter of 1963. The hon. Gentleman mentioned only 1964, which of course was an election year, but what he describes as disappointing figures are better than were achieved in four of the last eight years of the Conservative Government.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that that year there were three months of frost; that it was a record poor winter? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to two weeks of frost this year being responsible for the figures he has quoted. He must be fair in these matters.
  Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman walked into that one. I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite jeering when I referred to extremely difficult weather conditions in the first quarter of this year, and even a Conservative Government have to face bad weather conditions from time to time. The point is that for four of the last eight years of the Conservative Government they failed to achieve what they regard as the disappointing results that we have had in the first quarter of this year.
  The hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that 83,500 completions had been—
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the poor figures achieved by the Tories in 1963, which was pre-election year, and he showed how they picked up in 1964. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a promise that, as election year approaches, in 1970 the figure for starts will recover again?
  Mr. Greenwood: That shows a cynicism which is most uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he would never suspect me of adopting as cynical an approach as that.
  The disappointing figure of 83,500 completions in the first quarter of this year compares with 47,000 completions in the first quarter of 1963, 68,300 in the first quarter of 1962, and, going right back to 1958, completions were running in the 60,000's. The extremely disappointing figures to which the hon. Gentleman re-
  1672
  ferred are substantially better than were achieved during the period of the Conservative Government. Saying that does not mean that I am complacent, and I am not indifferent to the anxieties about the situation, as I have expressed publicly on more than one occasion.
  There is no point in going back to the speech which the hon. Gentleman keeps making about 500,000 houses. The hon. Gentleman makes his point, and I make my reply that the figure was realistic until devaluation. After devaluation, with the need to restrict public expenditure, and with the need to divert labour into manufacturing industry, that target became unrealistic. I have said since then that I am aiming to get completed each year the largest number of houses which the economic circumstances of the country permit.
  I can sum up the position at the moment by saying that in spite of what I concede to be disappointing returns for the first quarter I do not envisage any dramatic change this year in either starts or completions, but the point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) when he said that by the end of this year the 2 millionth house will have been completed since a Labour Government came to power, and that has relieved very considerably the pressure on the housing market.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that the Prime Minister's last promise of 473,000 houses in 1970 is no longer the target?
  Mr. Greenwood: I cannot quite follow the mathematics which lead the hon. Gentleman to that conclusion, but I shall study HANSARD carefully. We have said quite fairly since January, 1968, that the target of 500,000 could not be achieved. Since then we are aiming at the largest number that it is possible to get in any one year.
  That will depend on two factors. One is the record of some local authorities, and the other is the availability of mortgage finance. I have never criticised local authorities who, on a change of political control, think it desirable to reappraise the need for housing in their areas. I think that that is a proper and prudent step for them to take, but what

  1673
  I do criticise very much is that towns like Bradford and Oldham, once they have come under Conservative control, should decide to reduce their building programmes, and indeed to eliminate them in some cases.
  In Bradford in 1966 the number of approved houses going out to tender was 1,264. In 1968 it was four. With any luck this year it may be 147. Bradford had a large housing programme until the spring of 1967, when the change of political control took place. Thereafter, no new contracts were let. In 1966 the Ministry approved more than 1,200 dwellings, and in January, 1967, it approved an estate of 215 houses. Since then only a further 20 dwellings have been approved, and it is now two and a quarter years since the last new proposals for council building in Bradford were submitted. That is what I mean when I say that hon. Gentlemen opposite who criticise the Government should turn the spotlight on to an examination of what some Conservative councils are doing.
  Mr. Walter Clegg rose— —
  Mr. Greenwood: I have a great respect, bordering on affection, for the hon. Gentleman, but I have given way on a number of occasions, and I know that many hon. Members want to take part in this debate.
  In the case of Morley, the 106 tender approvals in 1966 were down to 33 in 1968, and none is expected in 1969. In Batley the 503 approvals in 1966 are down to none expected in 1969. In Oldham the 1,519 approvals in 1966 are down to 27 expected in 1969. This shows the great difficulty that is experienced if, in areas where we know there is an acute housing need, local authorities decide that the house building programme should be cut.
  I said that what happened in future depended not only on what the local authorities were doing, but on the availability of money for mortgages. When we debated these subjects on 19th March and 28th April, we discussed in some detail the reasons for high interest rates. It is no good trying to avoid the issue that the high interest rates operating in this country today are largely a reflection of world economic conditions, but there
  1674
  has been some improvement in the mortgage position.
  I remember how savagely the building societies were criticised in this House for having raised their rates in March. I have before me the latest figures—published today, and seasonally adjusted. The net receipts rose from £74 million in March to £95 million in April—an increase of about 28 per cent. I know that it is still early to be too positive about the inflow of money into the building societies, but the situation has improved. There is a good deal more optimism in building societies than there was, and I noticed, on Tuesday, an article in the Sun headed "Easier Home Loans Soon." In The Guardian today I see that Mr. Brown, of the Temperance Permanent Building Society, and President of the Building Societies Institute, said last night:
  "There is no real sign of any check to continued growth."
  I believe that there is growing confidence in the building society world. I want once again to place on record my appreciation for the contribution that the building societies have made to the housing programme, and for the contribution made by those who have lent their money so that others can buy houses.
  The hon. Member for Worcester passed his usual strictures on the Government's option mortgage scheme. I cannot say that I was surprised. He had said before in the House that the failure of the scheme was shown by the fact that 90 per cent. of the people with mortgages refused to take advantage of it. I submit that the success of the scheme is shown by the fact that 10 per cent. of the people with mortgages do take advantage of it. [Interruption.] I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) took an active part in our discussions on the Housing Subsidies Bill in 1967, but those who remember those discussions will recall that we estimated that 5 per cent. of existing borrowers would switch to the scheme and 10 per cent. of new borrowers would take advantage of it. Events have justified remarkably completely the accuracy of the forecast that we made at that time.
  Captain Walter Elliot rose— —
  Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have already given way five times.
  There is one disturbing aspect of the option mortgage question: the option mortgage subsidy is not worth as much now as when it was brought in. Before hon. Members opposite begin giggling too much about that, let me admit it quite frankly. When the scheme was introduced the subsidy was expressed, for the ordinary building society kind of mortgage, as a flat 2 per cent. reduction of the interest charged to the mortgagor. There were good reasons for expressing it in that way. I need not dwell on them now. But while the subsidy has remained as a flat rate the interest charged by building societies has risen. When the 2 per cent. subsidy was worked out the interest rate recommended by the Building Societies Association was 6¾ per cent. Since then it has risen, by steps, to 8½ per cent. When we introduced the scheme a family man with modest earnings, by opting into it, could put himself into a position comparable with that of a man who could get tax relief on earned income taxed at the standard rate. We cannot claim that now. That is a matter for profound regret. It is also a signal for speedy remedial action.
  We have given a great deal of careful thought to this matter, and my right hon. Friend and I have therefore tabled today a new Clause, for consideration on the Report stage of the Housing Bill, dealing with this problem. If it is approved it will enable my right hon. Friend and myself to make an order, or orders, improving the option mortgage subsidy. I had hoped for—but had not expected—rather more enthusiasm from hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Peter Walker: We are naturally enthusiastic, having pressed the Minister to do this for some months, but is he merely taking power to do this or actually doing it?
  Mr. Greenwood: The first thing is to take the power to do things and then, later, to do them. I must first give myself power to do it. Surely, by saying what he has said, the hon. Member is not suggesting that we can do things without having legislative and statutory powers behind us. There is no power in the option mortgage scheme at present to vary the subsidy that is paid. We are
  1676
  taking steps to do so. Hon. Members will be able to consider the Amendment, which will be tabled as a new Clause to the Bill, and it will be discussed in the House next week.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I recognise that power must be taken to do this, but is it the Minister's object to do it as soon as he has the power or when the economy of the country improves?
  Mr. Greenwood: We shall do it as soon as practicable after the necessary legislation has been put through. If the House really wants me to do so I can go into the new Clause in detail, but we shall have an opportunity to discuss it next week. At the moment the best thing is for me to say simply that what we seek is a more flexible power to adjust the subsidy in order to take account of changes in interest rates and tax arrangements, for we intend to keep faith both with the mortgagors who have opted into the scheme—of whom there are more than 300,000—and with those who, since the introduction of the scheme, have seen in it a hope of home ownership in the future such as hon. Members opposite did not give them.
  That is one new Clause that we are tabling. Perhaps at this point I can say how much I appreciated the helpful and constructive discussion that we had in Standing Committee on the Housing Bill. I hope that that attitude of amity and constructive criticism will persist on Report, next week and when we discuss the new Clause to which I have referred.
  Hon. Members opposite will be interested to know that we are also tabling a new Clause dealing with the Leasehold Reform Act. There has been a certain amount of disquiet about the way in which the Act is operating. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a keen and sensitive interest in this problem, and I very much hope that when he winds up the debate tonight he will be able to deal with this problem in greater detail than it would be proper for me to do now. I know that this new Clause will be wildly welcomed not only in the House but in many areas outside.
  I want also to talk briefly about the use that we have made of our powers under the Prices and Incomes Act in respect of council house rents. I have

  1677
  rejected 188—that is, about one third—of the new proposals for rent increases submitted to me, and about 1 million tenants in England have benefited directly through the reduction, postponement or abandonment of rent increases, quite apart from the less tangible but real effect that the Act has had as a deterrent to other authorities who might have increased rents irresponsibly.
  I want to give some examples of authorties who have been prevented from making what I consider to be unnecessary rent increases. The Greater London Council put forward a proposal for increases in October, 1968. They were reduced from an average of 11s. 7d. a week and a maximum of 22s. 6d. a week to an average of 7s. 6d. a week and a maximum of 10s. The proposals which were submitted to me for a further increase of nearly 7s. 6d. a week, to be made in October, 1969, were rejected altogether. We have also made substantial reductions in rent increases made before the 1968 Act became law. At Walsall the average increase was reduced from 13s. 7d. to 8s. 6d. a week. In the London borough of Harrow a Ministerial direction reduced the average increase from 20s. to 7s. 6d. a week.
  I also emphasise that it is the Government's policy that tenants with low incomes should be protected by adequate rent rebate schemes. The hon. Member for Worcester referred to this and went on to talk about differential rent schemes, without seeming to appreciate the difference between the two. This has always been a matter of controversy, on which views have been divided in the Labour Party for a long time, but, since I have been Minister, I have put all the power that I have behind the introduction of rent rebate schemes, wherever they are appropriate to local circumstances. As a result of the encouragement and the guidance which we have given, three-quarters of council house tenants in England are now covered by rent rebate schemes. That is a great step forward and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Worcester was not more enthusiastic about it.
  As to rate rebate schemes, the hon. Member talked about rates being higher than they were under the Conservatives. Of course, local authorities are doing more than they were doing under the
  1678
  Conservative Government, but the real point is that we are the first Government who have made a real attempt to get the escalation of rate poundages under control. The increase has been slowed down, and the domestic element has been introduced so that domestic ratepayers are protected. I am sure that many people will have noted the hon. Gentleman's remark that this has been done, to some extent at the expense of industrial ratepayers, but domestic ratepayers have been helped by the domestic element. This means that, this year, they are 1s. 3d. in the £ better off than they would have been.
  We have helped them, but—this is one of the things on which I have never understood why the party opposite was so ineffectual—the total estimated figure for rate rebates in England and Wales this year is between £13 million and £13½ million. This compares with the estimated expenditure last year of £12½ million. The average rebate per householder who qualifies is £16 10s. a year and the estimated number of recipients in 1968–69 was 840,000. That means that 840,000 householders were each that much better off than without this legislation.
  I hope that I have shown that I have come here today in no apologetic mood. I believe that our record compares very favourably with that of hon. Members opposite. Approximately 2 million families will be in new homes by the end of this year. There has been a great improvement in the planning system. We have given more generous help for the improvement of old houses, we have given long overdue justice to owner-occupiers, we have provided for an option mortgage scheme and, now for the improvement and amendment of that scheme. One million council tenants are paying smaller rents than they would have paid without the action which we have taken, nearly 1 million rate-payers are £16 a year better off. That may be failure to the Tory Party, but I believe that, to the public, it means not only success but hope.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Oscar Murton: I am tempted to pursue the Minister along his labyrinthine path in discussing the rent schemes which he has refused to allow. Possibly we could find out more details

  1679
  in future—perhaps by Questions. I wonder how many of these schemes were necessary because of the restructuring of housing subsidies before the Housing Subsidies Act. There is no subsidy available to restructure those loans, so they are at a higher rate of interest, and, if the rent is not raised, it inevitably becomes a burden on the ratepayer, if the housing revenue account cannot stand a surplus. I may be wrong, but it would be interesting to know in how many cases that applies.
  Naturally, I welcome the thought that the option mortgage scheme will be reconstructed. I fear that, when he issued his original pamphlet, the Minister did not know what would happen. It was rather rigidly phrased. I have told him before that some of my constituents were "after his blood". Perhaps, after what we hear next week, on the Report stage of the Housing Bill, they may withdraw their immediate desire to attack him so much.
  When we talk about option mortgages and the Government's help to home ownership, I would remind them that, in a somewhat ex cathedra statement when Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said on 12th September, 1963:
  "By intelligent monetary policies, Labour will bring mortgages within the reach of young couples living on average incomes."
  After a number of years, that statement sounds hollow. It epitomises the boundless optimism with which the Labour Party sprang into the breach after winning the 1964 election and ever since has shown itself, particularly over housing, incapable of governing.
  Those brave words were also echoed by the erstwhile henchman of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) who, in a notable contribution to his party's long list of broken promises, said:
  "We shall run the economy of this country as it has never been run before."
  Perhaps I was wrong in calling that a broken promise, since it has been effectively kept.
  What is the result? Building society mortgages are at 8½ per cent. The average wage of the industrial worker is now insufficient to qualify for a mortgage. On 19th March, I suggested that a man bor-
  1680
  rowing £5,000 over 25 years now needs a minimum salary of £40 a week to buy a house. Imagine the difficulty of that, when he probably has a young family as well. This is a very serious situation.
  Following on that, the standby of those who hope to begin home ownership are local authority mortgages, which are normally available to young married people who have begun by buying an older property, before moving on to their dream of something new. That is not happening, because of the progressive reductions in the amount which the Government have made available for lending by local authority mortgages over the past four years.
  The figures are interesting. In 1965–66, £191 million was allowed. In the following year, it had dropped to £135 million. In 1967–68, it had dropped again to £130 million and in the following year to £95 million. This year, it has sunk right down to a miserable £30 million. Yet the Labour Party promised to help the owner-occupier by providing a 100 per cent. mortgage through local councils. If that is the Government's "independent monetary policy" of 1963, it is a poor effort.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is not pleased with the Government's performance. We are all aware of the difficulties over many years and we appreciate what both Governments have done. But other figures are more significant than financial figures. Would he give the social figures for the improvements in infant or maternity mortality rates in the great City of Liverpool and in my constituency of Bootle, which, from being astronomical, have been reduced, particularly by this Government's effort, to well below national averages?
  Mr. Murton: I am not prepared to dispute that, since I could not begin to know the improvement and would require notice of that question. But, as time goes on, the figures must improve anywhere in Europe, I should have thought.
  The Labour election manifesto of 1964 said:
  "At the same time, we shall go ahead with a sustained programme to provide more homes at prices which ordinary people can afford."
  The truth is that the young people will not forget how the Labour Government have broken faith with them in this matter.

  1681
  I listened with interest to the Minister's words about housing starts and completions. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has dealt with the famous, or infamous, magic phrase, "500,000 houses". I intended to ask the Minister what he intends shall be the target for the next two years. He has been careful this time. He has probably learned from his predecessor and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to be careful about issuing figures. I thought that he would claim that the undoubted improvement of old housing has taken up some of the money which might have been used for new. I do not know whether it was intentional policy that there should be a corresponding reduction in new construction, or whether this is just a side effect—possibly even a smoke screen.
  What is the target, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will reach it? He has been rather coy about this, but, if he is not prepared to say, I would guess, without any concrete information—I do not have the benefit of the Minister's figures—that, in 1969 and 1970, completions will hover around the 400,000 mark and that we will not get near the 440,000 target announced in January, 1968. Perhaps we may be told more tonight of what is in the Minister's mind.
  I am keen on the 1964 Labour manifesto, which I find interesting bedside reading or for reading at any other time. It made the portentous statement:
  "It is no good having paper plans for houses if you have not the bricks to build them."
  I am told by the experts that we have plenty of bricks—947 million. It is the paper plans which the country needs to know, and not—this may be a cliché, but I hope that it causes some wrath on the other side of the House—paper plans by paper tigers. Paper houses are all right in Japan, but not in England and Wales.
  The quotation goes on:
  "As a result of public acquisition, building land can be made available at cheaper prices".
  There are no prizes to be won for guessing that it referred to the Land Commission.
  The Government Amendment refers to "help towards home ownership". It is
  1682
  interesting to note that the Labour Party's 1966 manifesto stated:
  "In the Crown Land Commission we are fashioning an instrument to secure a sufficiently orderly supply of land".
  In terms of home ownership, the private sector of the building industry has been hamstrung by the very fact that the Land Commission exists. It has not provided an ordinary supply of land so far and I doubt very much whether it will live long enough to do so. It has done nothing but force the price of land upwards.
  I concede that there has been some reform of the town and country planning procedures. I had the pleasure of working with the right hon. Gentleman in a Committee upstairs on this subject. However, we need a fresh approach to the whole concept of land planning. The Land commission, coupled with an artificial shortage, has forced the price of housing up.
  We know all about rising costs which put up the price of the building on the land, but there is an artificial shortage of land because people will not release their land for fear of being hit by betterment levy. In the debate yesterday I gave details of a case which has received much publicity in the newspapers. In this case, a constituent of mine is being assessed for levy when development may not even be taking place. People are frightened and are not prepared to release their land. I appreciate their fears, but this state of affairs is bad for housing.
  Similarly, local authorities are not receiving the guidance they should be getting about the release of land to private house builders. I have good reason to believe that, generally speaking, they release land only three years ahead of demand. If we are to get to grips with the house building problem, land must be released further ahead. I appreciate that this is a difficult matter and that the conciliationists will say that the countryside would disappear if this were done.
  This is not so because the land in question is already in the planners' mind. It is simply that they will not release it sufficiently far ahead to allow the developers and builders to produce the houses that we urgently need.
  We are told that there is a crude surplus of housing. It is crude only because it does not exist. A large number of

  1683
  houses still require to be built in urban areas to meet the existing shortage. I urge the Government to do something, in the short time that remains to them, to release land, for the Land Commission, with its supposedly orderly releasing system, is incapable of doing the job.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Most people in my constituency will find unconvincing the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite today to criticise what they describe as the Government's housing failure when the housing shortage, which is extremely acute in London, is being made even worse by the action of Tory councils. Most people will be more impressed by the measures that are being taken by Tory councils than by what hon. Gentlemen opposite are now saying.
  An example of what I mean has occurred in my constituency, where we are extremely grateful to the Minister for his action in preventing the Tory G.L.C. from raising rents by anything like the figures that it would have preferred. Another example from my constituency is the present proposal of the Tory Wandsworth Council to hand over nearly a hundred council-owned houses to a private housing trust which has no proper system of priorities for choosing people in real need. In this case the right solution for the area would have been wholesale clearance and redevelopment, as was proposed by the former Labour council.
  Failing that, it was, in my view, the plain duty of the present council to have at least modernised the houses, which were already in council ownership, and then to have let them to those who were worst off at the top of the priority list, most of whom had already been waiting for years. Instead, in this case only 50 per cent. of the tenants in the houses to be handed over to the housing trust will come from the council's housing list.
  That is bad enough, considering the existing housing shortage in London. It is even worse when one finds that grants and loans from public money are in this case being made available to this trust, whether or not it lets these houses to those who are in need. No doubt this housing trust, like others, is a worthy and reputable body, but it is wrong that public money should be used to subsidise
  1684
  houses unless the tenants are nominated from a publicly accountable housing list.
  This situation has arisen in Battersea because my right hon. Friend refused to confirm a clearance order for the area concerned, relying for his refusal on a report from one of his inspectors which, as I have told him, I believe was a faulty report. I will not pursue that argument today because the Parliamentary Commissioner has promised to investigate the matter. However, I regret that, having told my right hon. Friend that I was applying to the Commissioner, the Minister granted loan sanction in this case to permit the council to take action, to sell these houses and, thus, in effect, prejudice the investigation of the Commissioner. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend acted within his legal powers. But there does not seem to be much use in hon. Members referring issues to the Parliamentary Commissioner if his investigations are to be prejudiced meanwhile by actions taken by Ministers.
  One method of improving the housing situation, certainly in the great cities like London, would be for the Government to prevent councils from selling council-owned houses to bodies which have no proper priority lists, and for the Government to refrain from making public money available for them to do so.
  Another method—I believe that this would be an even more effective way of improving the situation—would be to stop the destruction of perfectly good existing houses, which is now taking place in our cities on a major scale for the building of urban roads. It is no good simply talking about housing starts without noticing that a large number of perfectly good houses are being threatened with destruction.
  I do not know how many people realise that thousands of homes, particularly in our big cities, are being destroyed every year simply to make way for new roads. I hope that, when the Secretary of State for Wales replies, he will give the number of houses likely to be destroyed during this year alone for this purpose.
  According to my information, which may be imperfect, nearly 4,000 homes are being destroyed—I am not referring to one year, but overall—for road building purposes in Glasgow, over 3,000 in

  1685
  Cardiff, and many hundreds each in Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and the West Riding. Yet these and particularly London are precisely the areas where the housing shortage is most acute. In London the G.L.C. is proposing to build urban motorways which would on its own estimate mean the destruction of homes at present housing 60,000 people. There is growing evidence that this is a serious underestimate.
  I believe that this policy is totally wrong in the existing housing shortage; that it would make the London housing problem insoluble for a generation; and that it is wholly unjustifiable to force people to live indefinitely in the conditions which now exist, for example, in North Kensington—I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington North (Mr. George Rogers) in his place—and Battersea, as well as in many other similar areas, just so that traffic may travel faster.
  These urban motorways have a trebly damaging effect on the prospect of better housing. First they destroy existing houses in the way I have described, I think on a greater scale than people realise; secondly they take away—this would be particularly the case in my constituency—precious land on which new houses could have been built; the land shortage is extreme in our great cities; and thirdly they inflate the cost of the road programme far beyond what I believe is reasonable, and so cut down still further the financial and other resources available for housing.
  The London Motorway Box project—only one of four proposed rings for London—would destroy the existing homes of at least 40,000 people, including in my constituency some excellent new council housing estates which were built in the last five years.
  By all means let us have motorways between cities and round cities, but I do not believe that any case has been made out for driving them through cities, and so causing wholesale frustration of housing plans. As far as I know, Parliament has never taken a decision to sacrifice homes on this scale to roads. Nor, I suspect, has any Cabinet or group of Ministers ever taken such a decision.
  1686
  Plans seems to have been hatched by enthusiastic though perhaps rather narrow sighted engineers, and have then been light-heartedly adopted by local councils suffering from delusions of municipal grandeur. There has never been a proper assessment in terms of both costs and benefits of these urban motorways from the housing point of view, and of the alternative policies, which might have been followed. That is apart from Edinburgh which seems to have had, with some help from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the good sense and good taste to turn down a proposal to drive a motorway through that city.
  If the Government are really serious in seeking to attack the deplorable housing conditions which still survive in our cities, they will review these ill-considered motorway plans and cancel—I say cancel and not postpone; postponement is not good enough because it causes blight—all of those which threaten the massive destruction of homes.
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to find more money, whether for the National Health Service or housing, here is a way for him to do it, and for once, instead of incurring odium from everybody, earn enormous gratitude from hundreds of thousands of people whose homes are now threatened by road projects.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: A point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and by the Minister, and a point that was cheered by hon. Members opposite, was that the public are well satisfied with the housing achievements of the Labour Government. If that is the case, it is very strange that 900 Labour councilors were sacked last week.
  I found the Minister's speech disturbing. He claimed that he was not complacent, yet it must be complacency to seek to cast on one side the fact that the original target of 500,000 houses by 1970 will not be met. That attitude is disturbing because, presumably, the party opposite thought it necessary to reach that target by 1970. Any shortfall in numbers will not only retard the housing target but will mean that many people will have to go on living in unfit accommodation. If the Government thought that target to be necessary, they cannot

  1687
  now just sweep it under the carpet because conditions have changed. It is therefore important to realise that the housing programme is lagging behind the target set by the Government themselves. That fact has serious implications.
  The Minister said that he had been able to interfere to keep down rents. In such interference there may be an immediate advantage to the tenants, but certainly not to the ratepayers. In the long term it means taking away money from housing, because the money that would otherwise have been paid by the tenants would have gone to balance the housing revenue accounts, and then to increase the balance. Local authorities would then have had a firm base on which to develop.
  Even after devaluation, the public purse can no longer provide the houses in the public sector which the Minister himself says are needed. It cannot be done, even by increasing the price of spectacles and teeth, which is to enable comprehensive education to go on. Housing requires much greater sums.
  I was also worried when the Minister—and I suppose that politically and tactically he is quite right—commented on what Conservative controlled councils are doing in housing. I suppose that we would speak in the same way were the position reversed. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will not be allowed, as others of his colleagues are, to continue to interfere with local authorities in the running of their own affairs. There has already been interference with rents. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to go no further down that lane, or all the talk of devolution of authority will mean nothing.
  The present housing set up has a fairly rigid division. We have owner-occupation, to which both sides are now committed, and we have the public sector, which comprises municipally controlled housing. It is the public sector that give me pause. It is not that the housing standards in the public sector are low or that the rents are too high: what concerns me is the quality of the life of the tenants in those houses.
  The legal rights of those tenants are absolutely minimal. They have only one legal right, and that is to receive 28 days' notice to quit. To be fair to local
  1688
  authorities, as long as tenants behave themselves and do what the local authorities tell them to do, it is very unlikely that they will be given notice to quit. On the other hand, if they do disagree with what the local authority is doing in this respect no court has power to protect them against action by the local authority. Their position is quite different from that of the tenants of private landlords.
  This lack of a legal stake in the property has very far-reaching affects. It is very difficult for a council house tenant to move within his local authority housing, and almost impossible for him to move from authority to authority. This is not a political issue, but something for all parties to consider. We are in danger of creating in our council estates, which represent about one-third of our total housing, a frozen society; a society cast in a rigid mould because it has not the ability to move. It is not that it does not want to move. Perhaps it would be good for it to move to places where workers are needed—
  Mr. Jay: If this is true, is it not a pity that because of Tory policy the G.L.C. is handing over a very large number of its flats and houses to the London boroughs and thereby restricting freedom of movement?
  Mr. Clegg: I do not think that that affects the argument. Transfer from the G.L.C. to another type of borough is beside the point. The difficulty lies in the legal tenure—the rights of the tenants.
  I want to see a new system established whereby the tenants have some rights, and their ability to move is not at the will of a housing officer or a housing committee. The present procedure is that a council tenant wishing to move gets in touch with the housing officer or housing committee. He may even have arranged a swop. But whether or not he is able to move depends, in the long term, on the bureaucrat. That means that many families are growing up in council estates and are fixed there for the rest of their lives.
  It is not only the question of tenure that makes them so very reluctant to move: very often it is that they might lose the subsidy. If they move into a privately rented house, the subsidy is

  1689
  lost. We must therefore look again at the way we subsidise houses instead of people.
  I want to see a more mobile society, and we should inquire whether local authorities in themselves are the right bodies to run the housing estates. After all, they have many other things to do. We may in the future in the bigger estates have to go into some form of co-operative venture—it is being tried in some parts of the country, and I hope that it succeeds—where the tenants will have some say in their housing affairs.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I go a long way with the hon. Member. People in council houses suffer from the intransigence of committees, but does he not feel that the same intransigence occurs in a vast amount of privately-owned houses? Indeed, most private landlords will not allow any sort of movement at all.
  Mr. Clegg: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument. The tenants of many private landlords have much greater rights against their landlords, either through the rent Acts or the leases.
  If we can get more movement of council tenants, or have council tenants taking some part in the running of the housing estates, we restore an element of choice. If a man is buying a house as an owner-occupier, certain choices are available. They are simple choices, but simple choices are very important to the housewife. She may want a certain coloured bathroom suite, or a through room instead of divided rooms, or cupboards here and not there. Private tenants, too, can get those things, but it is rare indeed to hear of council tenants being allowed that privilege. What I want is to bring new life and feeling into this one-third of our housing. We must therefore concentrate not only on numbers or on the quality of the woodwork or the brickwork, but on the quality of life that can be offered to our people.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. George Rogers: It is not often that I take time in the Chamber from other hon. Members. I am usually upstairs trying to stop other hon. Members from speaking in Standing Committee. On the occasions when I speak in the Chamber I seem to talk about houses and, inevitably,
  1690
  about the housing in my constituency, which is a stain and a blot upon the country's record. No matter how many times the question is raised, we seem to be very little nearer a solution, because no authority has the imagination or the energy to tackle the problem seriously.
  I know that it is boring for hon. Members when another Member talks about his constituency. I am restricted by the amount of time available before the vote is taken early this evening, so I will not trespass upon the good nature of hon. Members by giving details of the long report which has been prepared by the Notting Hill project under the direction of that energetic character, George Clark. It is because the problems in Notting Hill are so distinctive and because the area attracts dedicated people of this sort that we continually get these references to its housing problems, which may seem to give the area an undue prominence to other hon. Members who have housing problems in their constituencies.
  Notting Hill's housing problem is a very old one. It goes back longer than any hon. Member, even my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), can remember. I am the last person ever to blame a political party purely for the sake of doing so because it is not my political party, but I have to state that there is one reason, and one reason alone, for the state of housing in North Kensington today, and that is the complete inadequacy of the borough council in the area. No one else can be blamed, because there has never been anything but a Conservative council in control in North Kensington for the last 80 years. Not only has the Labour Party never breached the solid ranks of mindless voters in South Kensington. As Lord Spens said to me with a chuckle when he was a Member, someone once said that no Tory candidate, however inept, could lose South Kensington. The fact is that the people of South Kensington are either completely ignorant of the conditions of life in the rest of the borough or completely indifferent to the way their fellows in the rest of the borough have to live.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith rose— —
  Mr. Rogers: I expect the hon. Gentleman to rise to the defence of the council

  1691
  in South Kensington, but by the time I have completed my argument he, too, will realise that his party is responsible.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to approach the matter objectively, will he not agree that it is as unfair to attribute some of the worst slum conditions in parts of England to Labour-controlled councils as I think it is unfair to attribute the bad housing conditions in North Kensington to the Kensington Borough Council? There are big social conditions responsible for these things which go well beyond the powers of a borough council.
  Mr. Rogers: I am not at the moment concerned with any other part of Britain than my own constituency. I am concerned with Notting Hill, the area which is specially dealt with in the recent report, and with no other part of the country.
  The first speech that I made as a young propagandist was in Notting Hill about its housing conditions. That was over 40 years ago. As I am nearing my swansong in the House, if this is not my swansong, it looks as if my last speech will be about housing in Notting Hill.
  If we forget the period before the 1914–18 war when the social conscience of the country was not very alive to the bad housing of the workers, we must seriously consider what happened in the period after the first world war. We all know that up to the end of the first world war workers were still thought of as the lower orders who did not need bathrooms; if bathrooms were given to them, they would put coal in them or use them for such purposes. That attitude was very prevalent. I even came across that attitude when I was a young member of the borough council in Wembley after the first world war.
  It was not until the Chamberlain and Wheatley Acts, indeed not until the Wheatley Act which the first Labour Government brought in, that any real effort was made to provide the kind of accommodation that the average working class family needed. It was not until the Labour Party began to dominate the councils in London that the hideous warrens of the poor in the East End areas like Shoreditch began to be cleared away. Just as unemployment was never raised
  1692
  in the House until Keir Hardie appeared, the housing needs of the people of Britain were not made a prominent factor in housing policy until the Labour Party gained strong representation. The reason this problem has not been solved in Kensington is that the Labour Party has never had sufficient representation to dominate the council's policy.
  What happened between the two wars with the Tory borough council in control? Under the Acts that I have mentioned the council built two small cottage estates and one or two blocks of flats. It then decided to have an agreement with the Tory-controlled London County Council to leave housing to the Kensington authority. When the council got that agreement it left it all to housing associations and did nothing itself until after the second world war. The whole of the council's approach to the housing problem was lacking in imagination and energy.
  After the second world war, this council was the last council to get under way. When the first report on housing results in London was prepared, the Kensington council was shown to have the worst result. A year or two ago when a report was produced on the housing records of London authorities, the Kensington council had the worst record.
  When the London County Council—as it then was under Labour—tried to come into the area to build houses to help to make up for the deficiencies of the local authority, the local authority fought the Council; it objected to the building of council houses on Camden Hill because, it said, this would lower the tone of the area: the value of the houses would fall. Nothing of the sort happened. The value of the houses did not drop by one iota. In fact, the value rose. The people who lived in those council flats were just as well-behaved as any others.
  The Abbotsbury Road site became available. We wanted to build housing for the people on it, but permission was refused by the local authority and the land was sold to private developers, who erected the most expensive dwellings in the area at that time, as hon. Members who know Abbotsbury Road well will know. There has been all along this lack of understanding, this lack of energy, this lack of desire to solve the problem.

  1693
  Now we have a new lot of members on the borough council. I do not think any of them were there when I first became active in Kensington politics. The leader of the council says that he is prepared to do all he can to solve this problem. I am prepared to give him a chance. But I must be a little reserved, because when my right hon. Friend who is now the Chief Whip was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government he offered the Kensington Council the maximum financial assistance to deal with this problem. My right hon. Friend tells me that the council declined on the ground that land was too dear. If this is an argument, the problem, clearly, will never be solved, because land in London will not get cheaper; it will get dearer. This was a wholly negative approach which seemed to show that the council had not moved in the attitude it had had for the last 50 or 60 years. I can quote instance after instance where opportunities to solve this problem have been given to the council and it has refused to exploit them to the maximum possibility.
  In North Kensington, strange as it may seem, there are many pleasant places. There are many pleasant squares, some of the nicest in London. On the whole, with the present plans, the solution to the area's problem is not terribly difficult. The borough council has completed a scheme in Kensal New Town. The London County Council, which, I admit, was slow to get off the mark in North Kensington after the war, also had a scheme in progress in Kensal New Town. There are also the Lancaster West scheme on the eastern side of Ladbroke Grove and a G.L.C. scheme more or less completed in the Latimer Road area. That side of the Ladbroke Grove, the western side—which is the spine of the constituency—will not be too bad when the schemes have been completed.
  That leaves that part of the borough covered by the Notting Hill project report, that is, the rest of the Golborne Ward and part of the Pembridge Ward down to Colville Square, Powis Square and so on, the kind of area where we had so much trouble.
  With drive, an imaginative and large-scale scheme could get rid of the problem in another ten to 15 years, if the Govern-
  1694
  ment and the council really made up their minds to take Notting Hill off the housing problem map once and for all. I hope that in his conference with the G.L.C. and the borough council my right Friend will see to it that they mean what they say and present him with early plans to solve the problem. If he is not satisfied that this time they will tackle it seriously, I hope he will consider taking drastic action to take the responsibility for housing out of the hands of a borough council which has never shown itself capable of dealing with it.
  I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who spoke about the possibility that the local authorities may not be the best bodies to deal with housing. He has something when he talks about a more democratic approach to the administration of housing, the part to be played by the tenants, and so on. Some villages being built by a housing society in Wales are examples of this idea. They have a large measure of democracy in their administration. We have some very good housing societies in North Kensington. One established since the race riots is doing very well, but we have nothing on a large enough scale. There is the Peabody Trust, which does good work, but it has to raise its own finance. If, in consort with the local authority, the Minister could give the housing societies more financial help and encourage them to think on a bigger scale, they, in parallel with the local authority, might precipitate an end to the housing crisis in Notting Hill.
  All who come to North Kensington, especially people who are asked to canvass there at election times, are appalled by the sordidness and misery of these streets. It is time that this stain on the housing of the nation was removed once and for all. If the problem had not existed we should have had no racial troubles, because there would have been controlled housing. Had there been a proper solution years ago when it should have been found, there would have been no Rachman and his kind, because there would have been nothing for them to exploit or, at least, not on anything like the same scale.
  Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to bend his energies and his will to securing a solution to the problem. All of us

  1695
  in Kensington will be deeply grateful if he can help.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: I must resist the temptation to speak about the constituency housing points raised by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers), because, as the Minister pointed out, we have an Adjournment debate on the subject this evening. But I ask the House to take with a pinch of salt some of his statements about his constituency and the Kensington Borough Council. For example, he claimed that the old L.C.C. wanted to build in the borough and was prevented from doing so by the borough council. In fact, the borough council tried for, I think, 10 years to get the L.C.C. to consent to its development of Kensal New Town. While the local authority was keen to get on with the job, it was held up over and over again by the Labour-controlled L.C.C.
  Mr. Richard: I trust that at the same time the hon. Gentleman will remember a site called Abbotsbury Road in the borough. I was once the Labour candidate for Kensington, South, and I lived in it at about the time when a Labour London County Council wanted to house 1,000 people on that site. Ministers of the hon. Gentleman's Government refused to give planning permission on three successive occasions, as a result of which one can buy a lovely house in Abbotsbury Road today, but it costs £19,000.
  Mr. Allason: The site has gone for housing at the density the Minister at the time thought desirable. We should leave that matter there.
  It was the Kensington Borough Council which initiated all the discussions leading up to the 1964 Housing Act, which dealt with overcrowding, difficult conditions and the need for management orders in areas like North Kensington.
  I am glad that the debate today has already achieved something in that the Minister has made a welcome but belated announcement of the change in the mortgage option scheme. He has also told us of a further change that he intends as an amendment to the Leasehold Reform Act. I hope that it follows the lines of new Clause 17 which I moved in Committee on the Housing Bill, when the
  1696
  Minister undertook that he would bring in a Clause on the lines I suggested.
  The main question tonight is on housing targets, The Government told us of a clearcut target from which they said they would not be deflected, but the Minister said today, "We will build as many houses as our economic situation permits." That is a sad fall indeed. There is an extraordinary paragraph in the Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for 1967–68 in which it says:
  "These changes"—
  in the housing target—
  "stemmed from a new assessment of the size and nature of the housing need that had to be met. The rate of new household formation was expected to be lower over the next few years than previously estimated, whilst fresh information about the numbers of slums and the condition of other houses had been obtained in the survey carried out in 1967."
  That is apparently a sort of cover-up for the Prime Minister. The Government are now making a virtue out of their utter failure to meet their election promises. They are now saying, "It is all right; we do not need to build 500,000 a year. The number we are building is adequate. If we go on at the present rate, by 1973 we shall have a sufficiency of housing."
  I do not accept that. The need is far greater than 400,000 houses a year. The report from North Kensington will show that housing problems still cause a great deal of misery.
  Will the number of new houses a year even be as great as 400,000? Under the Housing Subsidies Act, the Treasury must underwrite all interest charges above 4 per cent. for the building of council houses, and it must be becoming very restive at having to meet the high interest rate now covered. It would be interesting to know what the Letter of Intent has to say about this. I fear that the Letter will involve a substantial reduction in the target of council housing because of the high expense involved by the very nature of the Housing Subsidies Act. Therefore, I do not see a great future for council house building.
  Let us consider what is wrong with the private sector. There are three things—the lack of sites, high interest rates and high prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) has suggested that more sites should be brought forward. It is a matter of planning. There

  1697
  is always the great fear that we shall run out of sites, but there are 29 million acres in the country that are not built on. I do not suggest that they should all be built on, but 1 per cent. of that total represents six years' housing needs at 10 houses to the acre, so it is reasonable to bring forward land for housing in an orderly manner and so ensure that at least the sites are there, which will bring down the price.
  The combination of high interest rates and high prices, forced up by such things as selective employment tax, makes it impossible for the average worker to buy his home. He is the man who the Prime Minister said would be able to buy a home, but he cannot do it. I had a letter today from a young married couple in my constituency with earnings of £17 a week. They cannot go on the housing list because they have not the qualifications. What are they to do? Where are they to live? They cannot afford to buy a house on a mortgage, and they are living in a tied house. We must change the whole housing situation so that people can afford to buy houses and set themselves up in their own homes.
  In 1966 the Government announced that they desired to see 50 per cent. home ownership in new towns. I was very surprised that the Minister forgot to mention this in his Amendment to our Motion. He is always boasting about the new towns. Perhaps he thought the figures might be somewhat embarrassing. I want to tell the House what houses are available for purchase in new towns from the new town authorities. The figures show a ludicrous situation. I am talking about the second-generation new town, which is adequately developed. It is high time something was done to develop home ownership in new towns. I am happy to start with Basildon, where there are 16,000 rented houses, and the situation is under consideration. That is fair enough. At Bracknell there are 7,000 houses, and all are available for home ownership if the tenants wish. But the situation in the other new towns is very different. The figures are: Crawley—11,000 rented houses, 850 available for sale; Harlow—19,000, 125; Hemel Hempstead—11,000, 265; Stevenage—14,000, 1,910; Welwyn and Hatfield—10,000, 284. It is all very well for the Government to say that it is their policy to encourage home owner-
  1698
  ship and that they want to see 50 per cent., but they do not allow 50 per cent.
  The only way to do this is to give instructions ensuring that every tenant is offered the chance of home ownership. Many will not want it, but there are many who passionately want to own their own homes but are being prevented from doing so by the Government. No good will be served by talking about a magnificent policy unless it is put into practice. The experts say that it cannot be done. If it can be done in Bracknell, why not elsewhere? Housing is the most important social service. When housing conditions are unsatisfactory there is the greatest human misery.
  In Britain today there are many families with thoroughly unsatisfactory accommodation. The Government are now pretending that their present house-building programme is more than adequate. I do not accept that. The Minister has failed the nation and he should resign. Let him take the rest of the Cabinet with him.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. David Winnick: I do not believe that anyone is likely to take too seriously a Motion of censure on the Government's housing record tabled by a party responsible for the 1957 Rent Act. In my view, and in the view of my right hon. Friends too, that Act caused so much misery and hardship that the Opposition should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. When we introduced the Rent Act in 1965 the Opposition did not vote against the Second Reading because of public feeling and pressure.
  I would like some clarification about the Conservative attitude towards rent control. There was a letter in the Evening Standard, written by the Chairman of the G.L.C. Housing Committee—a leading Conservative in Greater London—and he urges the removal of rent control. Is this official Tory policy? Will a future Tory Government—if one should come about—before telling the electorate beforehand, remove security of tenure, as they did after the 1955 Election?
  If we look at the whole problem of the housing shortage, the difficulties of people trying to find adequate accommodation with limited means, it is essential to mention one or two things.

  1699
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) mentioned his own constituency and new town. I want to see many more new towns, because we shall not solve the housing problem in areas such as London without many more new towns. The Conservative Party's record on new towns, when in power, was very far from being a credit. It seemed to lack any urge to build any such towns, and I do not think that anyone is likely to challenge that remark.
  If we are to try to relieve pressure on London, and get away from party propaganda and all the rest of it, there must be a more even distribution of industry throughout the country. As long as people continue to come into places like London and the big cities in the Midlands, so long will the situation continue. What is required is a more even distribution of industry. The Government's regional policy, carried out with proper safeguards—and I speak as a Greater London member—is the proper one and should be pursued. We all know that there are areas where there is no difficulty about buying or renting accommodation; the only snag is that a person cannot get a job. When I talk about the even distribution of industry, I believe that housing must be linked to trading matters, industry and many other factors. Housing cannot be considered in isolation.
  It is inevitable in such a debate that figures will be quoted from both sides—we will justify what we have done since we came into office, and the Conservatives will try to prove that we have done very badly indeed. It is not just a question of figures, of reaching certain housing targets. Naturally, I want to see many more houses built and to see us reach our target of 500,000 houses a year. We hope that this will be possible once the economic climate improves. But this is not just figures. Consider a family unable to get a council flat who cannot afford a mortgage. It is no good telling such a family they can get a luxury-priced house or a flat being built at Brighton or Worthing. I am concerned with making sure that we build the type of accommodation required by those most greatly in need. The policy of building more council accommodation is absolutely right. I welcome the subsidy
  1700
  arrangements, which make it easier, financially, for local authorities to build.
  Some Conservative M.P.s are very angry about the intervention of the Minister over the question of council house rents. I believe that his intervention was absolutely justified. Just before I came to the House my own local authority, Conservative-controlled, introduced rent increases some of which were well over £1 a week—in one go. These sort of increases cannot be justified. I know that the G.L.C. increases were less but I still do not believe that they were justified.
  I would like to ask my right hon. Friend to bear one particular point in mind, to do with local authorities and council building. I am very worried, like a number of my right hon. Friends, about a few Tory-controlled councils which are embarking on a policy of selling land, which has been bought for housing, to private developers. My own local authority is considering it. It has not gone much further. I am told that the London Borough of Hammersmith has tried to sell a very important slice of land to private developers, and I am glad that the Minister has refused permission.
  The situation, I believe, is the same in Slough and Camden. For local authorities to sell land in areas where there is an acute housing shortage is a crime against the homeless. Private developers will build accommodation which people on the waiting list could never afford to buy or rent. I hope that the Minister will intervene wherever necessary. He intervened and tried to stop the sale of council houses, and he received the full support of this side of the house. If local authorities, Conservative-controlled, continue with the policy of trying to sell land to private developers then the Minister should intervene on every possible occasion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers) raised the question of Notting Hill. This is a national matter. Let me explain briefly how I became involved. About two years ago, following a Private Notice Question about the Davis Investment Group, I was asked by an I.T.N. film unit to visit some of the houses and the

  1701
  families in Notting Hill, North Kensington. I had known before some poorly-kept and managed multi-occupied premises, but I must tell the house that when I went along and saw for myself the squalid and miserable conditions in which people were living in Notting Hill, in houses which had been owned by the Davis Investment Group, I was deeply depressed. I immediately wrote to the Minister and told my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North.
  What has been the position in North Kensington in the post-war years? A number of property companies have bought up houses, not because of any concern about housing as such, or private tenants. All that they have been concerned with is getting the maximum profit in the shortest time. The people who have controlled such companies, who have bought and sold properties in the Notting Hill area, are like black marketeers. They play on the difficulties and problems and the miseries of the homeless.
  I spoke to some of the tenants. I asked them if they had applied for a rent reduction. Some had, and, obviously due to the efforts of George Clark and a number of other people in Notting Hill, many private tenants have had reductions in rents. It is remarkable that Conservative spokesmen say that the problem in Notting Hill is due to the Rent Act, to rent control. They say that if rent control was removed, we should not have such a problem. Without rent control the problem would be even worse, because tenants would have no protection or security.
  That was the position between 1957 and 1964. Now tenants in Notting Hill have some protection. They cannot be evicted. Where accommodation is unfurnished, the tenant can apply for a reduction in rent. Is there not a case in Notting Hill and other similar areas to extend the Rent Act to cover security of tenure for furnished tenancies? A number of landlords put bits of furniture into hovel-like conditions and such accommodation is outside the Rent Act for the purposes of security of tenure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the position, and recognise that there is a special problem in certain multi-occupied areas, and extend the Act along the lines I have urged.
  1702
  A word now about the local authority in the area. I have spoken about shady, Rachmanite property companies—these evil men who bought and sold properties for the last 10 or 15 years in North Kensington. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North has said, responsibility rests, to a great extent, with the local authority, the Conservative-controlled council, which in my opinion has shown a callous, brutal disregard for these people in North Kensington and particularly in Notting Hill. My hon. Friend quoted the Leader of the Conservative council as saying that the council will consider reviewing its policies. If the council continues in its old way, if there is no change of policy, then the housing responsibility of the borough council should be taken over by the Ministry.
  No one can be complacent about the housing position and problems in Greater London. We know that some people still find it impossible to solve their housing problems, they cannot get a council flat or a mortgage.
  No Labour M.P. can ever be complacent about what is happening in Greater London. But bearing in mind the difficulties, our housing record as a Government is a good one. We have carried out much that we promised—the Rent Act, leasehold reform, mortgage relief—and I am particularly pleased by the announcement made by my right hon. Friend about the mortgage option scheme. There is much more to do, and my hon. Friends will be urging the Minister to do more on housing. I do not believe that the Conservatives have any right to table such a Motion of censure, and I am in no doubt that it will be decisively rejected.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I have given my Front Bench an undertaking to sit down in 10 minutes, which somewhat restricts my remarks. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) made a typical Socialist speech on housing. There was not a word in his speech, and very little in the Minister's, about how to increase house production. It was a typical Socialist approach—"do not produce more, control more". I should like an opportunity to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman

  1703
  about the Rent Act. I could develop the true argument and show him the statistics and facts which demonstrate that where freedom of rent applies houses are in surplus, and where it does not there is no surplus. Those are the facts of life.
  I think tonight of the people who are still wanting houses, and I deplore the way in which the Minister has turned this into a political debate, not a debate about production. [Laughter.] The Front Bench opposite may laugh, but what has the Minister said which will help to reduce the price of houses or increase the production of houses?
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): Is the hon. Gentleman complaining that this is a political debate? I understood that it was on a Motion of censure.
  Mr. Costain: The right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently aware of Parliamentary procedure for me not to have to explain that to him. What I expect from him, what the country expects, and what the people waiting for houses expect, is a lead to show that the Government mean to provide more homes. People are sick and tired of promises by the political parties. They are disgusted with the party opposite which makes promises which it cannot keep.
  During the 1964 election campaign—I just make this short political point—when the famous theme song of the Socialists, as they promised 500,000 houses a year, was, "Anything you can do we can do better", some people took them seriously. Some people voted for them. The brick makers took them seriously. There are 944 million bricks available today, enough to build more than the 500,000 houses. As I say, the brick makers took the Socialists seriously, and now we have nearly two years' stock of bricks available if not another brick were made. That is little consolation.
  What the House ought to be doing, what the local authorities ought to be doing, and what the nation ought to be doing, is deciding how we can build houses more quickly and more cheaply. How can we meet the housing demand? A great deal is made of the argument that, if someone buys a house, he stops someone else having a council house.
  1704
  Precisely the opposite is true. Fewer people today can afford to buy houses of their own because of the rising prices; house prices have risen by 7 per cent. a year since this Government came into power as a result of actions by the Government themselves. But those who can afford to buy will obtain a house anyway, and the very fact of their buying a house means that they do not live somewhere else and a house lower down the scale is available. In the same way, if someone buys a new motor car, there is a second-hand motor car on the market, and the log jam is released. People can understand that. But, low and behold, with the inbred envy which is so typical of them, Socialists do not accept the truth of it in housing.
  The Government, of whatever party, must determine their function in housing. What can the Government do to help to house the people? They have control of planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) made a good point in emphasising that. We were told that the Land Commission would make more land available for house building, but this week we had the pathetic answer that in two years it has released only 18·3 acres of land. There are 1,404 civil servants working in the Land Commission, this new body which was supposed to do wonders, but anyone who is good at mental arithmetic can see that that means only 20 square yards per man per annum made available for housing—a little bigger than a grave. Can one imagine an estate agent setting up in business with the object of selling 20 square yards of land a year? He would be bankrupt in a week.
  The Government must help by making land available. But they will not make land available through bodies such as the Land Commission which have no power over planning. The Government themselves are the ones who, through the local authorities, can control the supply of land. Goodness gracious—when will we learn that the only way to reduce the price of anything is to increase the supply?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole asked why we do not release land ahead. Why not? The statisticians tell us that the population of this country will be 64 million by the end of the century. Cannot we be realistic and realise that they

  1705
  will want land for houses? Cannot we be realistic and say, "Let us take a chance and release a little more land then necessary at this time"? It would reduce the price of land more quickly than anything else, and that in itself would reduce the price of housing. If we reduce the price of houses, we at once increase the number of people who can buy. Wicked though the hon. Member for Croydon, South may think it, it is not a sin to own a house. It is a good investment in the country.
  Cannot this Government understand how they have added £120 million a year to construction costs through their selective employment tax?
  Mr. Winnick rose——
  Mr. Costain: I cannot give way. I have only three minutes left. The S.E.T. is a wicked form of tax. It means calling upon posterity to pay for what is spent now as income. The Government must realise that money which is taken from the construction industry, from capital assets, goes on to current account and it is spent as though it were income, and another part of the loans over 60 years must carry what is necessary to pay the S.E.T. This is just another example of what the Government are doing in adding to the cost to be met by posterity.
  Those are major matters over which the Government have control. How did the Conservative Party get the housing programme going under Mr. Macmillan?
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter rose——
  Mr. Costain: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman. They got it going by setting the builder free. For goodness' sake, let the people who understand building get on with the building.
  Mr. Leadbitter rose——
  Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman is too excited. All right. I shall give way.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the facts. We have built 12½ per cent. more houses for private owner-occupation in the past four years than the Tories did, and we have built 40 per cent. more for public renting than the Tories did.
  Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman should grow up. He ought to realise that it takes 18 months from the planning stage to build a house. The only success which the Labour Government had came at the beginning because they took advantage of the flywheel momentum of housing starts under the previous Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members do not accept that, I remind them that there were 423,000 houses in course of construction when they took over.
  Mr. Leadbitter rose——
  Mr. Costain: No; the hon. Gentleman has had his go. There were 423,000 houses in course of construction at that time, but ever since then they have not completed anything like that in any year That is not success. It is failure.
  Mr. Leadbitter rose——
  Mr. Costain: No. I have given a pledge that I shall sit down in a minute. I should love to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
  Mr. Leadbitter rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way, the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) must sit down.
  Mr. Costain: There is not much we can do politically in this Chamber to help housing. Someone once said to me that it was a great pity that everything to do with housing seemed to be politics. My reply was that housing would be part of politics just as love was part of marriage. But we can help the builders by giving them the opportunity to get on with building. I know jolly well that, when we get into power, my right hon. and hon. Friends will do just that.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I sincerely regret that, by reason of the way in which we order our business, I have had to endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at this stage and interrupt what is a most interesting and becoming an exciting debate.
  The Opposition Motion is direct and to the point. It accuses the Government of failure to fulfil their housing programme and it deplores the impact of Government policies on the costs of mortgages and on

  1707
  the cost of house building. Being direct, the Motion attacks on a comparatively narrow front, which I should have thought it would have been easy to defend—if the Government had any defence. By the Amendment the Government have sought to widen that front in the hope, I assume, of weakening the Opposition's attack by stretching their lines, but in fact it is the Government's lines of defence which are crumbling in these tactics and the Amendment is a retreat from the real issue and certainly a retreat from the truth.
  I hope that the Government will learn from this debate in future that to set up a schedule of shibboleths is not a good defence. As hon. Members will know, it was the shibboleths of the fleeing Ephraimites which detected them as the fleeing ones.
  We deplore the cost of mortgages, a cost which has been pushed up and up over the years that the Government have been in office—1965, after four months of Labour Government, up ¾ per cent.; 1966, after another 14 months of Labour Government, up another ⅜ per cent.; 1968, after another 24 months of Labour Government, up another ½ per cent.; 1969, after another 11 months of Labour Government, up ⅞ per cent.
  Now it stands at 8½ per cent., the figure recommended by the Building Societies Association, but many societies—and here I had better say that I speak as the director of one—have to charge 8⅞ per cent. and not 8½ per cent., and if someone happens to let off a small flatlet in his house, he will be charged 9⅞ percent. This week the societies have reached the fantastic position that, because of the Government's general policies, it is so necessary for local authorities to borrow that they are paying 9 per cent. on seven-day notice borrowing. It, therefore, pays the building societies better to lend their money to local authorities than to home buyers. It is cynical perhaps to say that, but that is the sort of fantastic situation in which we are placed as a result of the general policies the Government.
  On what further flights of financial fancy will the Government take off? Unfortunately, the apparent fantasies are real. The high financial terms of the I.M.F. and devaluation and the P.I.B.
  1708
  and letters of intent and the rest are of great academic interest when we hear them on T.V., but they cannot be isolated as matters merely of academic interest. They hit, directly, at that family, the husband and wife and two or three children in a top floor room eating, sleeping and living in one room, the cooker on the landing and the lavatory two floors down, the family who may be saving or trying to save to buy its own home and which finds that, like Tantalus, it is always having it pushed out of its reach by the Government. Perhaps I should have likened the Government to Tantalus and not the prospective home-owner, for it will be remembered that Tantalus was standing up to his chin in water, and that is about where the Government have now got themselves.
  Owning a home of its own by a family such as I have described, and we all know many such families in our constituencies, has been made unattainable not only by the increase in interest rates, but by the relentless rise in house prices and therefore in the repayment instalments and in the amount of deposit which a prospective purchaser has to find. In the Motion we deplore the cost of house building, and many actions of the Government have added to that cost—S.E.T., the increase in National Insurance contributions, corporation tax, petrol tax and the rest.
  But there is an additional factor which would remain even if all these others were removed. Even if one were to discover a new and speedy and more economic method of building, house prices would still keep up for the very reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)—the big demand and the small supply. While that remains, house prices, even if one got the actual cost of building down, would probably remain up.
  The Government have done nothing effective to ensure a steady rate of increase in that supply. They have done nothing to ensure the release of adequate land for building houses. They have only created the Land Commission which in two years has sold only 2·3 acres for house building.
  Yet in the Amendment the Government ask us to congratulate them on their reform in town and country planning. If

  1709
  that means not the overall policy of town and country planning, about which I have been complaining in saying that not sufficient land was being made free for house building, but with procedure it is a false claim. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, is based entirely upon a report of the Planning Advisory Group, "The future of development plans" set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) when they were respectively Minister of Housing and Local Government and Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a false claim that these reforms are solely the present Government's.
  The Minister based much of his argument on a comparison between the last four years of the last Conservative Government and the first four years of the Labour Government. In comparing these two sets of years, 1961–64 as against 1964–68, he showed an increase of 312,000 houses, an increase of 24 per cent.
  Since the last war, it has been possible to choose many combinations of years in that way to shown increases in the rate of building. I will take as an example a similar comparison—the last four years of the previous Labour Government and the first four years of the Conservative Government which followed, 1948–51 compared with 1952–55. In the last four years of the Labour Governemt there were built 818,245 houses, while in the first four years of the Conservative Government which followed the figure was 1,223,901 houses, an increase of 405,656, an increase not of 24 per cent., but of 50 per cent. over the efforts of the previous Labour Government.
  But it is not the historical figures which concern us now. It is the current figures which are important, and that surely is why we are having this debate. The Minister said that this was the third housing debate in three months. It is, and it is because of the current figures that we are anxious again to bring before the House the serious situation into which the country is drifting under the present Government. In the first quarter of 1969, there were 70,800 starts which was 19,700 down on the same period of 1968; completions at 83,400 were 13,200 down; local authority approvals at
  1710
  20,700, were 19,900 down, 50 per cent. down.
  These are very serious figures, and the Minister has failed to give any credible reassurance about the future. We need a better explanation on this immediate problem than the explanation which the Minister chose to give. It is clear from those figures that the supply of houses is to be severely cut this year. It has always been difficult to ascertain how many houses a year the Government wish to see built. In the National Plan of 1965 the figure was 500,000 by 1970. It was the same figure in the Prime Minister's famous pledge, "not lightly given", of 1966. In 1968, the Minister, in answer to a Question, gave, if one works it out, a target of 440,000 by 1970. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) pointed out, the Prime Minister was, at the same time, saying that it would be 483,500, again if one works out the figures based on the replies.
  But there is a clear Government target in the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) referred in an intervention. He called attention to the magnificent figure of 2 million houses which will be built by the end of 1969 by the Labour Party since it came to power. I do not want to weary the House with too many figures, but these should go on record. I want to discover what that 2 million means. The Government came into office in October, 1964. Taking the last quarter of 1964, the figure was 107,012; in 1965 it was 382,297; in 1966 it was 385,509; in 1967 it was 404,356; and in 1968 it was 413,715. Those figures add up to 1,692,889 to the end of last year which, when taken away from the figure of 2 million which is to be reached by the end of this year, means that the Government's target for this year is 307,111. Is that all? Why make this play with the figure of 2 million houses built at the end of 1969?
  Mr. Leadbitter: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is this. In March this year there were 442,000 houses under construction. The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is wrong as well as his logic.
  Mr. Page: That is almost the same as when the Labour Party took office,

  1711
  and the Government have never succeeded in building that number of houses a year.
  I should like to know the target. In the Amendment we are asked to congratulate the Government on the fact that they will have completed 2 million houses by the end of 1969. I do not propose to congratulate the Government on building only 307,000 houses this year. Why try to get publicity for the figure of 2 million houses built by the end of 1969? Perhaps that is the only true statement in the Amendment.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: There is another true statement in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman complains about what the Labour Party promised to do and what it has not done. Another true statement in the Amendment refers to
  "the removal of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas whom previous Conservative administrations failed to help."
  What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?
  Mr. Page: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. He has quoted one of the biggest lies in the Amendment. Let me repeat it—
  "the removal of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas whom previous Conservative administrators failed to help."
  In 1935 the Conservative Government created the well maintained payment. When the Labour Party was in office between 1945 and 1951 it did nothing at all about the compensation law. In 1955, the Conservative Government started the slum clearance drive and introduced market value compensation for those who had bought between 1939 and 1955. In May, 1965, when the Government had the opportunity to do something about this matter on a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) on a Friday, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, although he said that he had been up all the night before and had not had any breakfast, made a speech for 33 minutes. He sat down at four minutes to four o'clock in order to allow his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Herbert Butler) to talk the Bill out. Do you know what he said on that Bill, Mr. Speaker? He stated:
  1712
  "It might be said that the answer is to give everyone market value, but we believe that that would be wrong".
  Now the Government congratulate themselves, five years later, because they think that it would be right. Talking about the site value rule, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "It is fundamental to an effective slum clearance programme and has been recognised to be so by successive Governments ever since it was introduced in 1919. Its basis is obviously correct."
  If the Government rely on the fact that they have suddenly been converted in the last year to giving part market value to some of those who are suffering, I am right in saying that the statements in the Amendment are untrue.
  Mr. Greenwood: It may have taken my hon. Friend 33 minutes to explain the position, but it took the Conservative Party 30 years between the 1935 Act and a Private Member's Bill in 1965.
  Mr. Page: I seem to remember that the Labour Party was in office between 1945 and 1951 when it could have done something about it. In 1935 and in 1955 we did something about it, and we pressed the Government to do something about it when they had the opportunity in renewing the slum clearance Act in 1965.
  I have spent too long perhaps on one point, but I was asked to deal with it and I have shown what untruths there are in the Amendment. It speaks about generous improvement grants. They are simply a matter of catching up with inflation and the increase in building costs. It speaks about speeding up slum clearance. Eighty per cent. of the present slum clearance schemes were approved by the Conservative Government. We are asked to congratulate the Government on their "help towards home ownership". What help? House prices and mortgage interest rates have increased so that the repayments put home ownership out of the reach of the average manual worker. How dare the Government talk about "help towards home ownership".
  The Minister talked about a relief of £16 10s. per annum on the rates for 840,000 people. That is about the increase in rates which has occurred while the Labour Government has been in office. We are asked to congratulate the Government on housing associations. They have

  1713
  cut the potential of the Housing Corporation by half. The opening sentence of the 32nd annual report of the National Federation of Housing Societies states:
  "There are many within the voluntary housing movement who look back at the year under review as one of the most frustrating they have experienced."
  We are asked to congratulate the Government on that.
  The reckless disregard for the truth in the matters listed in the Amendment is a scraping of the barrel to find an excuse for the failure of the Government's housing programme. The public will see through it and show their contempt, at the next general election, for the Government's inefficiency in ensuring that the people have decent homes.
  6.40 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): We all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who brought some life to the debate. When it began I almost failed to recognise the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker); he was so subdued. It has been impossible to realise that this was supposed to be a great attack by hon. Members opposite upon this side of the House; indeed, at one stage I took pains to count the attendance of hon. Members opposite who felt so strongly on this issue, and I found that there were six—[Interruption.] I did not look behind me. I never pretend to greater qualities than I possess. I do not pretend that I have eyes in the back of my head—but I have eyes in front. The party opposite has not behaved as though this was a substantial Motion of censure—and I shall give some reasons why. I believe that hon. Members opposite have run out of speeches for their Supply Days.
  Before I turn to the content of the debate I must point out that for all hon. Members, wherever they sit, the question of the type and quality of the houses in which our people live is of the utmost importance. I do not believe that anyone is complacent about the housing of our people. We make our party points—the House thrives on scoring party points; it keeps the place alive—but, at bottom, we all share a deep concern that the housing of our people
  1714
  shall be worthy of the country. The efforts made by respective Governments differ. A different emphasis is placed on different sectors of the problem, as I hope to prove. I do not believe that any formula can measure the social consequences of poor housing standards.
  Before I turn to the statistics I hope I may be allowed to make one personal reference. I take statistics very seriously, but I hope the House will forgive me if I introduce one personal note, because I know that the House does not like them. Twenty years ago my elder sister was killed in a road accident. When the statistics for road fatalities were issued that year they showed that over 400 people had been killed on the roads, but in my mind there was only one—our Ada. When we talk in terms of statistics we must realise that for each family the only important question is the condition in which it is living. We are sometimes carried away by political arguments so that we forget how much the lives of our people are affected.
  I shall soon start my twenty-fifth year in this House—at least, I hope so. I shall do so if my health holds out. I have been concerned in many a vote of censure. I have been re-reading the report of an interesting vote of censure in 1963, when we were on the other side of the House and the party opposite was on this side. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) proudly told the House that 4½ million houses had been built in the United Kingdom since the war. In 18 years 4½ million houses had been built. We can now tell the House that in five years 2 million more have been built. When the party opposite went out of office its proud boast to the electorate was that 25 per cent. of our people were living in a post-war house. Today, the proportion is 37 per cent. This does not read like a failure.
  I have been dealing with the hon. Member for Crosby for a long time. I know his technique. The weaker his argument, the louder his voice. If ever a man needed a thick skin the hon. Member did when he talked about rising prices. He asked us to consider the way in which the price of a house had risen in the five years during which this Government have been in power. He traded on the short memories of the public, but I shall remind them of the true facts. It so happens

  1715
  that this rising trend in prices began not in 1964 but a long time before that. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite gave it a good start, well before we came into power. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is making my speech for me, because the rate of increase has slowed down. I shall give the figures to the House.
  From 1960 to 1964 the cost of new houses increased, on average, by 7·5 per cent. each year; from 1964 to 1968 the figure was 7 per cent. That is too high, but it is lower than the previous annual rate; it is beginning to move in the right direction. The cost of second-hand or older houses increased from 1960 to 1964, the last four years that the Conservatives had power in their hands, by 8·2 per cent. each year. From 1964 to 1968 the figure was 6·8 per cent.
  We have had a lot of humbug tonight. [Interruption.] I had a job to stop laughing when the hon. Member for Crosby was talking. I know that the yardstick by which we measure achievement today is achievement yesterday; it is the only yardstick that the House ever uses. We cannot measure achievement by the mysterious future which Providence hides from our eyes; we can measure our housing achievement only by the yardstick of what is already there.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Promises.
  Mr. Thomas: Promises? The hon. Member had better whisper that word. The party opposite used to talk about a property-owning democracy. Since this Government have been in office there has been an increase in the number of owner-occupiers. In our four years of office the number has increased by 100,000—a 13 per cent. increase in that four-year period.
  The House knows that I hail from the Rhondda Valley, although I have had the honour of representing in this House for 24 years part of the city of Cardiff. The people of South Wales, like the people of Birmingham and London, have been persecuted by the leasehold system, that system which is the essence of capitalism and which meant that when people bought their home it still belonged to the ground landlord. It was a remarkable system, but it continued until we came into power.
  1716
  Two important decisions have been registered by the Lands Tribunal. Since those decisions were taken ground landlords throughout the country have been forcing up the price of freeholds.
  We believe that the leaseholder should not be considered as a bidder in the open market. We believe that it is wrong that the leaseholder who owns the bricks and mortar should have to pay what the profession calls the marriage value when he seeks to purchase the freehold of his home. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has said, we are today tabling an Amendment to the Housing Bill as a result of which a million leaseholders will become property owners in the right sense of the word. We have done more in four years to create a property-owning democracy than the Tories did in all their years of office.
  Mr. Graham Page: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was on the Committee that dealt with the Leasehold Reform Bill, or he might recollect that we on this side said that unless the Government tidied up the Clause in question there might be an open interpretation of it, but all our proposals for improving the Bill were cast aside.
  Mr. Thomas: The House will recall that I used the phrase "a thick skin and a poor memory". I have campaigned in the House and outside for too long not to remember the history of the party opposite on leasehold. During the passage of the Leasehold Reform Bill the party opposite told us that we were stealing, that it was confiscation; they were opposed, root and branch to the Leasehold Reform Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that he was opposed to it, and I well remember the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East saying that Western Ground Rents, about the worst ground landlords in Wales—
  An Hon. Member: And still are.
  Mr. Thomas: I do not know what they are now, but they certainly were the worst. However, the right hon. Gentleman said in the House that they were charging a fair price for their property.
  We have given to owner-occupiers a liberty that they have been denied by the party of big interests opposite. The party opposite remains the party of big business

  1717
  and big interests, but I am talking about the owner-ocupier of modest means.
  I am particularly proud that we took action about those who owned property in clearance areas. The reason why local authorities have been reluctant to embark on slum clearance has been the inadequacy of the compensation which they were entitled to give to those whose houses were unfit. Whether a house is well maintainted or whether it is declared unfit by the inspector, it is the house for that family, and we have laid down for the first time that an owner-occupier shall be entitled to the market value for his house. This removes a grievous social injustice which has lasted for far too long.
  When I was on the other side of the House in 1959, people living in an area in my constituency in West Cardiff called Riverside were being pushed out of their houses, being paid £70 or £80 and having to move to the outskirts of the city. We know that when there is slum clearance people have to move to outside areas, but it is monstrous that the community should acquire land and not pay at least the market value for the property. That land is now at the mercy of a Conservative council in Cardiff—I am sorry that I spoke about the right hon. Gentleman when he was not here——
  Sir Keith Joseph: I was here.
  Mr. Thomas: At the end of the day we are dependent upon the local authorities. The land that was taken from those people who owned their own homes in Cardiff is now being sold by the Conservative corporation to private developers, and an enormous price will be obtained.
  Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman will surely recollect that it was his Government which removed from the Bill the Clause which would have given that profit to the owners when council plans were changed.
  Mr. Thomas: I remember a good deal more. I remember that in that Measure there were precautions. It is true that this local authority has been able to exploit the Clause which allowed it, and the Tories are doing so.
  Earlier in the debate figures were being bandied backwards and forwards. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has given the House the record figures for housing. There is no need for anyone on this side of the House to apologise. Far from a vote of censure, we should be getting a vote of thanks.
  We all know that local authorities throughout the country are largely in the control of the party opposite, and it is a serious thing if Conservative councils do not have proper housing targets. Last year in Cardiff the housing achievement dropped to roughly 460. Two years ago it was 1,100. But then it was a Labour council. Ever since the Conservatives came in, the policy has changed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has given me similar figures for Scotland—of tremendous achievement in the private sector and in the public sector. There are more homes for the people. In Scotland, England and Wales there is the same story of advance and success, and I hope that the House will reject the Motion.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 218.

  Division No. 219.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Blackburn, F.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Anderson, Donald

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Archer, Peter

  Booth, Albert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ashley, Jack

  Boston, Terence

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Boyden, James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Brooks, Edwin

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Baxter, William

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

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

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Binns, John

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Dell, Edmund

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dickens, James

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Driberg, Tom

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

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

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

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Eadie, Alex

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lawson, George

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Ellis, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Probert, Arthur

  English, Michael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Ennals, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Rankin, John

  Ensor, David

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Richard, Ivor

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Finch, Harold

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

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

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roebuck, Roy

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Luard, Evan

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Ryan, John

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McCann, John

  Sheldon, Robert

  Ford, Ben

  MacColl, James

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Forrester, John

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Fowler, Gerry

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackenie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackie, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Gardner, Tony

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Slater, Joseph

  Ginsburg, David

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Small, William

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

  Taverne, Dick

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mapp, Charles

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Marquand, David

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thornton, Ernest

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tinn, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tomney, Frank

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hamling, William

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hannan, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Harper, Joseph

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wallace, George

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Henig, Stanley

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Moyle, Roland

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Whitaker, Ben

  Hooley, Frank

  Murray, Albert

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Horner, John

  Neal, Harold

  Whitlock, William

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Newens, Stan

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hoy, James

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Hynd, John

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

  Woof, Robert

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Padley, Walter

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Paget, R. T.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Mr. Charles Grey and

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Park, Trevor

  Mr. Neil McBride.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bessell, Peter

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Balniel, Lord

  Biffen, John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Batsford, Brian

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Astor, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

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

  Bell, Ronald

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Blaker, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  1720

  1721

  Body, Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hay, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Braine, Bernard

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brewis, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pardoe, John

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Peyton, John

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Burden, F. A.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pounder, Rafton

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hordern, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornby, Richard

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hunt, John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Francis

  Clark, Henry

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Clegg, Walter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cooke, Robert

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cordle, John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Corfield F. V.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crouch, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambton, Viscount

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dance, James

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Sharples, Richard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lane, David

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

  Dean, Paul

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Silvester, Frederick

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

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

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

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Doughty, Charles

  Lubbock, Eric

  Speed, Keith

  Drayson, G. B.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stainton, Keith

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Eden, Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Emery, Peter

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

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

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maddan, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Farr, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Fisher, Nigel

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Fortescue, Tim

  Marten, Neil

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Foster, Sir John

  Maude, Angus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Waddington, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gower, Raymond

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grant, Anthony

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Murton, Oscar

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Neave, Airey

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wylie, N. R.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Nott, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Hastings, Stephen

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 217.

  Division No. 220.]

  AYES

  [7.13 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Anderson, Donald

  Barnett, Joel

  Booth, Albert

  Archer, Peter

  Baxter, William

  Boston, Terence

  Ashley, Jack

  Beaney, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Boyden, James

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Binns, John

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Blackburn, F.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Horner, John

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hoy, James

  Padley, Walter

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Paget, R. T.

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Park, Trevor

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hynd, John

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Judd, Frank

  Rankin, John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dell, Edmund

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Richard, Ivor

  Dempsey, James

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Dickens, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Eadie, Alex

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Ryan, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Ellis, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert

  English, Michael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Ennals, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Ensor, David

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Luard, Evan

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Slater, Joseph

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Finch, Harold

  McCann, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  MacColl, James

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Strauss, Rt. Hn, G. R.

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Taverne, Dick

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Tinn, James

  Fowler, Gerry

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Tomney, Frank

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Gardner, Tony

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mapp, Charles

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marquand, David

  Wallace, George

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Weitzman, David

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wellbeloved, James

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Millan, Bruce

  Whitlock, William

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hannan, William

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Moyle, Roland

  Winnick, David

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Murray, Albert

  Woof, Robert

  Hazell, Bert

  Neal, Harold

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Newens, Stan

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Norwood, Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Henig, Stanley

  Oakes, Gordon

  Mr. Charles Grey and

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. Neil McBride.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Oram, Albert E.

  1724

  1725

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gower, Raymond

  Murton, Oscar

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant, Anthony

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Neave, Airey

  Astor, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nott, John

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Balniel, Lord

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bell, Ronald

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pardoe, John

  Bessell, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Biffen, John

  Hay, John

  Peyton, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  Blaker, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Body, Richard

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pym, Francis

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Braine, Bernard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Brewis, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hunt, John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Burden, F. A.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Clark, Henry

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Clegg, Walter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Silvester, Frederick

  Cooke, Robert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Cordle, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Speed, Keith

  Costain, A. P.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stainton, Keith

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lane, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Crouch, David

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

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

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

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lubbock, Eric

  Temple, John M.

  Dance, James

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Dean, Paul

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Waddington, David

  Doughty, Charles

  Maddan, Martin

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Wall, Patrick

  Eden, Sir John

  Marten, Neil

  Walters, Dennis

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maude, Angus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Emery, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Farr, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Foster, Sir John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Monro, Hector

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Goodhart, Philip

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the success of its housing policy, as a result of which it is anticipated that by the end of 1969 two million new houses will have been completed
  1726
  since the General Election of 1964; on its reform of town and country planning; on its welcome proposal now before Parliament for the payment of some generous improvement grants on old houses, for the speeding up of slum clearance, and for the removal

  1727
  of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas whom previous Conservative administrations failed to help; on its effective action against escalating rents and its encouragement of long-overdue rent rebate schemes; on the provision of a domestic rate subsidy for the current year of 1s. 3d. in the £ in England and Wales, 2s. 6d. in the £ in Scotland; on its recent improvement of the rate rebate scheme introduced by the present Government and of very great value to ratepayers most in need of help; on the increased assistance it has given to voluntary housing associations providing housing by improvement and conversion; and on its provision of option mortgages and the help towards home ownership.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
  7.22 p.m.
  Lord Balniel: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the irresponsibility of Her Majesty's Government in announcing increases in social insurance and other benefits without revealing what extra burden this will impose upon employed people, employers and general taxation.
  A month has now passed since the Budget speech, and the Finance Bill has been published and is now in Committee. On the very day on which the Budget speech was made—indeed, throughout the Budget debates—we condemned the Government's irresponsibility in announcing changes in National Insurance benefits without disclosing how the cost would be met. Still today, a full month later, we have been told nothing of how much extra taxation will be required and how much extra contribution from employed people, how much extra contribution from industry, how much of an extra burden on general taxation. The financing of National Insurance benefits is as important as taxation, because, exactly as taxation, it affects the take-home pay of every family in the country.
  I am glad that, at the last moment, the Secretary of State for Social Services has decided to take part in this debate. I was told just before the debate that he did not intend to take part. With my usual good nature, I assumed that he had forgotten the debate, as he had forgotten the recent local elections. It would though be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman could make up his mind and stick to it for five minutes at a time. What I suspect has happened is that, as a result of the
  1728
  Motion, he found himself in a completely untenable position and has therefore found it necessary to take part in the debate. He is very welcome.
  I am bound to say, with the Chief Secretary present, that I am astonished that no Treasury Minister is taking part. Overwhelmingly, the Motion criticises the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I fail to understand how the Chancellor could put before the House a Budget judgment, announcing increased benefits from the National Insurance Fund, without disclosing the increased taxation which will have to be levied to meet those increases. The failure of any Treasury Minister to take part in the debate seems to compound the irresponsibility which our Motion condemns.
  It is the right hon. Gentleman's duty, of course, to reply to the general debate, but we understood from the Leader of the House, during Business Questions today, that he intends to make a statement about the Health Service charges on dentures and spectacles. I should like to ask him two questions. The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that the announcement of increased charges on dentures and spectacles would be announced in the Budget. Why did he hope that it would be in the Budget, and why was it excluded from the Budget?
  Second, when he announced the increased charges on dentures and spectacles, we were given to understand from his statement that the money which would be raised would be used for other parts of the National Health Service. In particular, he mentioned the possibility of using the finance for hospitals for the mentally handicapped. These are charges which bear most hard on the elderly. We now understond that the additional revenue raised will be spent on comprehensive schools. Could this be cleared up. May we possibly be told whether the additional revenue will be raised for the Health Service or for comprehensive schools, as we read in the paper today?
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I understood the noble Lord to say that he expected me to intervene on the subject of the contributions which are the subject of this debate. It is news to me that the subject of charges has been introduced.
  Lord Balniel: Probably the right hon. Gentleman left the Chamber before the Leader of the House made his statement, but I understood that one of my hon. Friends referred to the increased charges and the Leader of the House said that a statement would be made by the Secretary of State for Social Services. If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Crossman: I think that there was some misunderstanding. The point is that I hoped to suit the convenience of the House by discussing the subject of the contribution levies which we were making and this, I thought, was the subject of this debate.
  Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend may not have read the reports in tonight's Evening Standard and Evening News to the effect that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had no idea that the increases on spectacles and false teeth were to be diverted to comprehensive education.
  Lord Balniel: I think that we had better leave the matter there, for this emphasises that we have a dithering, disintegrating Government.
  The Budget was designed to increase taxation by £272 million in the current year and by £340 million in a full year. This was clearly explained to the country, apart from some minor evasions about where the burden would fall. This vast increase in taxation is widely understood; and it is also widely recognised that it is the third hardest Budget this country has experienced in peacetime.
  It was not clearly explained that a similar amount would have to be raised to meet the changes in National Insurance benefits in the autumn simply to restore the purchasing power of the pension. The Chancellor was exquisitely precise in announcing the benefits. He was studiously vague in disclosing the burdens. That perfect balance which the right hon. Gentleman tried to achieve—of announcing the benefits but hiding the burdens—seems to epitomise the economic mismanagement of the country at present.
  The Chancellor said that the cost of the increased State insurance benefits would be about £250 million in a full year. He went on:
  1730
  "… but substantial extra provision will have to be made on top of this, to take account both of the existing imbalance between income and expenditure of the main National Insurance Fund, and of the continuing increase in the number of pensioners in relation to the working population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1014.]
  I shall return to the question of the imbalance of the National Insurance Fund shortly, since a great deal of explaining needs to be done. Explanations have no doubt been given to the International Monetary Fund on its three-monthly audit of Britain's economy but the House of Commons is also entitled to have an explanation before the debate ends.
  We repeatedly, throughout the Budget debates, pressed the Government to say how this cost would be met. We asked them to say how much extra weekly contribution would fall on employed persons, how much extra weekly contribution would fall on the shoulders of industry and how much extra burden would be placed on general taxation. The Government consistently refused to answer these key questions.
  We are, after all, not talking about small change. The explanations we require about this taxation involve sums of money which are comparable with the totality of the Budget. In other words, the sum which will have to be raised in contributions is about equal to the total which is being raised in taxes. Yet the Government have refused to answer these questions on the ground that they are still working out the sums.
  I have made inquiries to confirm my memory of previous pension increases. On all five occasions when, under Conservative Administration, increased benefits were announced, the increased contributions were announced absolutely simultaneously. Normally we thought it right that the statement should be made by the Minister responsible—then the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—but I concede that there was one occasion, in very special circumstances—it occurred in the 1952 Budget following the crash of the economy in 1951 under Labour—when there was, in that unique circumstance, an announcement of increased benefits made by the Chancellor in his Budget speech. At the time the Chancellor was my noble Friend Lord Butler. But in his Budget speech he announced not only the increased benefits

  1731
  but, simultaneously and down to the last ½d., what increased contributions were required.
  I recognise the urgency of the situation and I could read the Chancellor's mind clearly as, in the Budget, he piled tax on top of tax. The purchasing power of the State pension is falling rapidly and I agree that it urgently needs to have its value restored. Food, gas, electricity, coal, bus fares—I read about this in the evening papers—rates, rent, clothing, beer, and cigarettes—all these items of everyday life are costing more.
  In my constituency the water rates this year are being increased by 42 per cent. Many other costs which particularly hit the elderly are increasing; for example, the charges on dentures and spectacles. While this might seem a rather absurd example of how rising prices particularly hit the elderly, the increase in the tax on pet food will have a big effect. Many elderly people are lonely and a great number of them have pets to keep them company. Indeed, between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of all elderly people are known to have pets. The cost of keeping a dog will be increased by about 4s. a week, The Budget as a whole will give a further twist to the price spiral, with its increase in S.E.T., a tax which has a direct impact on the cost of living.
  I cannot understand the Government's extraordinary self-satisfaction with the position. I accept that, like decent human beings, hon. Gentlemen want to be generous towards our old people. I am the first to confirm that directly they were returned to office they substantially increased the value of the State pension, paying for it out of the prosperity of those times, which seem a long time ago.
  But the economic mismanagement since then—emphasised by this incident in the Budget which we are debating today—results in the purchasing power of the State pension being substantially below what it was in 1965. The latest figures, issued in March, 1969, show that, compared with similar figures for four years ago, there has been a drop of 5·1 per cent. in the real purchasing power of the pension.
  It is impossible for us to make exact forecasts, but it is reasonable to anticipate that, within six months of the pro-
  1732
  posed November increases—the increases which will take effect this autumn—the purchasing power of the pension will again have fallen to below the 1965 level. This will be exactly the rate of erosion which followed the 1967 pension increase. Under the Government's proposals there will be a regular two-yearly review, but already, long before the pension increases have come into force, we know that within six months the pension will have fallen to below its purchasing power of 1965.
  The tragedy is that these heavy increases in contributions, however they will be distributed—perhaps we will be told today—which should achieve an improvement in the standard of life of our old people, will have lost their meaning within six months. In other words, these heavy increases are necessary not to secure a real improvement in their standard of life but purely to compensate for the tide of rising prices.
  Just as it is wrong to announce benefits in isolation, so it is wrong to consider the burden of contributions in isolation. Contributions are part of that complex of taxes and prices which affect people's take-home pay. Our poor battered families are facing the treble impact of higher contributions, higher taxes, and higher prices—prices which rise every day. Since 1964, the National Insurance contributions have gone up by 40 per cent., while average weekly earnings have increased by 27 per cent. In 1964, an employed man, not contracted out of the graduated scheme, paid 11s. 8d. a week. Today he pays 16s. 8d. a week. That is an increase of 5s. a week.
  During that same period taxation has been increased by over £3,000 million, which means that for every £1 taken in taxes by the Government in 1964, over £2 is being taken today. In that same period between 1964 and January of this year, prices have risen by 21 per cent.—4s. 3d. in the £. This is a very different picture from that in which the Conservatives increased pensions five times and, at the same time, made large cuts in taxation.
  In view of this treble impact of higher contributions, higher taxes and higher prices on our working population and on industry, it simply is not fair or straight not to have announced the details of how the higher benefits would

  1733
  be paid for at the same time as announcing the higher benefits themselves.
  There can be only two possible explanations why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make that announcement in his Budget speech. Either he knew how they would be paid for and did not wish to increase his personal unpopularity by announcing them then, or he did not know, in which case the Government stand convicted of incompetence and irresponsibility. I will not attempt to distinguish whether the reason was the personal vanity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government's ignorance. Hon. Members opposite can take their choice. But it must be one of those two reasons.
  I turn now to the National Insurance Fund, and to that part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in which he indicated that an unspecified increase in contribution is needed over and above what is needed for the payment of the increase in benefits
  "… to take account … of the … imbalance … of the … Fund …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1014.]
  It is very disturbing to hear about this imbalance of the Fund. I hope that before we rise for the Whitsun Recess—and presumably it will be when the Secretary of State introduces his Bill—we will have the Government Actuary's Report explaining the situation.
  It is very disturbing to hear that the National Insurance Fund has run into deficit again, because, only so very recently, steps, and extremely unpleasant steps, had to be taken to put the National Insurance Fund in balance. When the last pension increase was announced, the Government Actuary's report published in June 1967 as Cmnd. 3321 said:
  "Table 4 shows that the proposed contribution increases will be more than is needed"—
  more than is needed:
  "to meet the direct cost of the increases in benefit rates, the balance of the extra income being required to meet the deficits which would accrue before 31st March 1970 if present rates of benefit and contribution were continued. Contributions at the proposed new rates should therefore be adequate to support the increased benefits over that period."
  Then, just a very few months later—on 16th January, 1968—the Prime Minister announced that an extra 6d. a side increase in the National Insurance contribution was needed
  1734
  "… to prevent the National Insurance Fund from going into deficit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1588.]
  This was the first time in the history of the National Insurance Fund that contributions had been put up without a corresponding increase in benefits.
  When we challenged the then First Secretary of State, now the Foreign Secretary, to say what was wrong, he said:
  "There are limits to human capacity for far sightedness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 355.]
  That may be true, but there are also limits for short sightedness.
  This is not the end of the story. As my hon. Friend, will remember, only last December—again, I think, for the first time—no less than £200 million was transferred from the Reserve Fund to the main National Insurance Fund. This was done, according to the Government spokesman, to put the Fund
  "… in a better financial position to meet demands which may be made on it."
  He went on to say:
  "This is a precautionary transfer and it is possible that the money transferred will not actually be drawn upon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 717–20.]
  Now, four months later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that substantial extra provision will have to be made because of the imbalance.
  The International Monetary Fund has, without any question, been given an explanation of the situation. The House also is entitled to know what has gone wrong. The House is entitled to know what is the total cost of the increased benefits; of the pensions, and of the related benefits such as sickness benefit and unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit, incidentally, has soared from £45 million in 1965 to £125 million last year.
  The House is entitled to know what is the increased cost of the supplementary benefit which is proposed this autumn; and, perhaps most important of all, what is the increased cost of again putting the Fund in balance. The House is entitled to know, and it should have been told at the time of the Budget, exactly how the burden is to be distributed between different employees; what additional burden is to be imposed on industry,

  1735
  and what additional extra taxation is to be levied to meet these changes in the National Insurance Fund.
  The failure to give that information in the Budget speech which announced changes in benefit was wrong in principle. It was absolutely unprecedented. It was deceitful towards the general public, and it was completely irresponsible from the point of view of the general management of our economic affairs. This Motion condemns the Government for their irresponsible action at the time of the Budget speech.
  7.48 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I certainly agree with the noble Lord on one thing, and that is the importance of this subject, and vast sums with which we are dealing and the very big decisions we have to make. He has not exaggerated there at all. We have an immense job. In that job we are reviewing the whole range of National Insurance benefits and allowances—industrial injury, supplementary benefits and war pensions. They are all being reviewed in terms of benefit and contribution. That has been my job and that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State who specialises in the subject in the Department.
  I admit that when I looked at the Motion I was in two minds, as the noble Lord said, whether to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with the narrow and, I must say, slightly pettily expressed issue in the Motion, or myself intervene to deal briefly with that aspect and rather more widely with the big issues which the noble Lord raised towards the end of his speech. I came to the conclusion that the House would not be content in this debate—indeed, would be disappointed—if I did not speak. I therefore decided that the best thing that I could do was to make as full an interim explanation to the House as possible, and to answer as many of the questions that the noble Lord has put to me as I can.
  I will deal this evening, I think in adequate detail, with one subject the noble Lord has raised—that is, the National Insurance Fund and the amount to be raised. I shall not be able to deal in detail with the exact methods of con-
  1736
  tribution because they are enormously complicated, though I will deal with the general principles of benefit.
  There is one special reason for this which I shall come to towards the end of my speech. Since the White Paper was published, and as a result of its publication, there has broken out in pension circles, which are extraordinarily private circles in the sense that very few people understand what is going on, a major dispute about one paragraph in the White Paper. It dealt with the highly technical, but very important for millions of ordinary people, subject of what is to happen to the benefit which people have earned as a result of the Boyd-Carpenter pension—the benefit they get from the bricks they acquire, or the pension entitlement from the graded element in the contribution.
  This controversy was started by a representative of Unilever, I think, from the National Association of Pension Funds. It has been clear that there is an immense discussion going on, and this issue is one which we cannot avoid and which we have to take a decision about. As I said, my White Paper was a White Paper with green edges. I meant it. This is certainly one of the issues where I am prepared to think, and I am indeed thinking again. Since this in a sense does indeed relate to the Bill, though it would not be included in the Bill, a statement about this must be made before the Bill is considered so that the Bill can be seen on its merits. I have decided that this discussion must continue.
  I therefore think that the best thing that I can do is to give the description to the House this evening of what we are up to and to describe the issue. We will give the full details after the Recess. Then we shall come to present the Bill and the actual White Paper which accompanies it. That is the programme of action which I have put to myself, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  My speech will be divided into four parts. First, I will deal briefly with why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an announcement in his Budget speech. He did not announce the details of the benefits. He announced only the main benefit to indicate the line. Second, I shall deal with the costs and the state

  1737
  of the National Insurance Fund. Third, I shall say in principle how the contribution will be raised. Then, finally, I shall tackle the special subject of the problem arising among pension funds about the future of the benefit accruing on the graded element in the Tory Government's scheme.
  I will try to deal with the same sense of gravity as the noble Lord employed with the issue of the Chancellor's behaviour. The noble Lord asked me why the Chancellor announced this. I will tell the noble Lord quite candidly why my right hon. Friend made the announcement. He made the announcement to reassure pensioners that the Government intended to implement their pledge to protect them against price increases, and to do so before the winter. Very naturally, the Chancellor knew full well that if he had not made that statement in his Budget speech a number of people might have been anxious that they were going to suffer the same kind of fate as that which befell them normally under a Tory Government.
  I looked back and saw what happened about pension renewals under our predecessors. After the increase in 1958 it was three years and three months before the next increase came. Before that it was two years and nine months. Before that it had been two years and six months.
  We have written in the White Paper the proposal that there should be statutory biennial reviews. Our last review was exactly after two years. What the Chancellor was telling the pensioners was, "Yes. Whatever happens, you will get it in the two-year period which we have promised and which is a good deal shorter than happened under our predecessors." [Interruption.] If I think of that period of thirteen years, sometimes prices went up more and sometimes less. I am coming to the prices now, because the noble Lord raised the important question of the value of the pension.
  The truth of the matter is—let us give the facts as they are; I do not think that the noble Lord and I really disagree on these facts—that the current retirement pension still at this present time provides 10 per cent. more spending power—more real value—than the pension had when the Tories were in office. The real value—that means the real income of pen-
  1738
  sioners —has been substantially raised Even in this difficult period before we do the 10s. increase, it is 10 per cent. above the income which people had before we took office, and it will be 20 per cent. above when we have completed the change next autumn. That is a very simple fact. The autumn increase—the noble Lord asked me about the increase—will restore the value of the pension to the October, 1967, level. That is 20 per cent. higher in real terms above the 1964 level. In money terms the increase represented by the new £5 pension for single persons compared with the 1964 pension of £3 7s. 6d. is £1 12s. 6d., or nearly half as much gain.
  I shall not spend much time arguing, but I think that pensioners knew this very well. We did in fact make a major shift. This was a redistribution. We said to the workers, "Look. We have promised it. The retired must have a larger spending power, even if it is at the cost of us all spending rather less during our working lives".
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: How much?
  Mr. Crossman: I am talking about 1964. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have to ask how much. The increase this year will be 10s. for the single person. All the other corollary rates will have the relevant increases. That will restore the value. The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on pensions, will recognise that the pension is in real value one-fifth greater than the pension which the Tory Government felt the people deserved. That is a very big difference. It is a difference we have sustained over a very difficult economic period and despite the great difficulties of the period.
  I would simply say that in a Budget review of the economic situation I should have thought it would have been most extraordinary to leave that out. The Chancellor also had a very special reason for doing this in his Budget Statement, because he was making a series of reforms and tax changes specially designed to suit old people. For the third time since 1964 he increased the income limits up to which elderly people of 65 or over qualify for age exemption from income tax. He made another concession, in that from now on the taxpayer aged 65

  1739
  whose income does not exceed £1,000 will be able to claim relief equivalent to two-ninths income relief on his investment income. My right hon. Friend also proposed to raise the income limits on allowances for those maintaining an elderly or infirm relative. My right hon. Friend took a great number of small steps.
  Obviously, if my right hon. Friend was making all those small tax changes, he had to relate them to, and enable them to be seen against, the increase in the pension, because one of the most important things to do if the pension is increased is not to lop off the increase by letting the tax level be at a point where the pension is subtracted from by tax. This needs to be done. It is petty to say that this is something which the Chancellor should not have done, because he made it clear in his speech also that substantial extra provisions need to be made on top of this, and he made it clear that we would have to pay a very heavy price in contributions.
  So I come to the second point, which is the burden of contributions, the detailed scheme of which we are now working out. Before I come to the figures, let me first give the reasons why this burden has increased. It is not simply the increase in the value of the pension. As the noble Lord rightly said, there is a substantial amount more which we receive above what is needed to increase the pension.
  Why are we doing that? We have drawn attention to one of the factors, which is quite simply that the number of pensioners is increasing in proportion to the rest of the population. Their numbers are growing faster and faster than ever. We draw attention to this in our White Paper, which gives figures showing that the ratio of people over minimum pension age to the population of working age will increase from 25·2 per cent. in 1967 to 28·3 per cent. in 1980. In the early 1960s the number of retirement pensioners was increasing annually by numbers ranging from 100,000 in 1961 to 170,000 in 1964. This is remarkable. Since 1964 the increase has been about 200,000 a year. At the end of 1968 retirement pensioners numbered nearly seven million.
  1740
  The hon. Gentleman asked why retirement pension contributions must go up. One of the major factors is our success in keeping our old people alive longer. It is a success that we must pay for, just as our success in education means that our children cost us more. Our dependants at both ends of the age range are costing us more and more, while the size of the working population tends to decline. Unless the population trends change remarkably in the years ahead, we shall have to look forward to the working population having deducted from their earnings larger proportions even to maintain the value of the pension, far less to increase it, as I would like to do. It is a formidable problem when we have an extra million pensioners in seven years not only to maintain the pension value as we want, and as I think the hon. Gentleman wants, but also to see that the individual pensioner receives a larger share. So much for the pensioner.
  There are other factors which increase the contribution. One is the disconcerting fact that although in the past three winters fewer old people died, more working people claimed sickness benefit. There has been a very heavy increase in sickness benefit during this period. It is partly due to our earnings related sickness benefit scheme for the first six months of sickness. This is a very generous scheme, like the generous scheme for unemployment benefits, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention. One reason why unemployment benefit costs again went up is that we pay very much better benefit now. It is true that the six-months' earnings related benefits for sickness and unemployment, which most hon. Members opposite must admit to be an enormous improvement not only in principle but in practice, is a very costly improvement. It is a cost that we have to bear, and if the scheme continues at that standard it will cost more.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the number of unemployed also increased in that period. These changes might each seem somewhat marginal but we are dealing with £2,000 million a year and what are marginal in statistics can be formidable differences when they are worked out. It does not take more than a statistically small number on sickness benefit to produce an enormous increase in cost.

  1741
  Therefore, the result of the changes was that we had many more old people to look after, many more people going sick and claiming sickness benefit, and somewhat more unemployed. In the financial year just ended, the National Insurance Fund had a deficit on current working of £80 million because of the continuing growth in the number of pensioners. After making reasonable allowance for present trends, it is clear that if steps were not taken the deficit would grow over the next two or three years. Our estimate is that by 1971–72 it might be as high as £220 million at present rates of benefit and contribution. So we can see the scale of the problem.
  This autumn we must not only pay for the increased pensions and allowances, which no one in the House will grudge, but must act promptly to ensure that the Fund is kept properly in balance now and in the immediate future. This means that we shall need to find a total of about £430 million. But this will not all have to come from increased contributions. About £70 million is automatically the Exchequer contribution. We shall accordingly need to raise from increased contributions about £360 million. That is a very large sum, but essential if we are to fulfil our obligations to the pensioners and others with benefit entitlement and keep the National Insurance Fund on an even keel.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. I think I have answered his main section on the state of the National Insurance Fund and the amount to be raised.
  I turn to the second matter about which I was asked——
  Mr. Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he was in effect assuming present trends. I do not ask for precision in his reply to this, but am I right in saying, therefore, that he is assuming something like, seasonally adjusted, the present level of unemployment, and that that is implicit in the figures he is giving to the House?
  Mr. Crossman: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let my hon. Friend the Minister of State reply. I think it is a question of whether it is the last two months or which period is taken. I
  1742
  do not think that we have anything to disguise on that.
  We have a formidable sum to raise. How to raise it? There was one temptation I would mention to the House. It would have been possible to argue that we should not raise it all now but should wait for the quinquennial review. The Conservative Government, envisaging that increases without increased benefits might be necessary to keep the fund in balance, made provisions for quinquennial reviews, and the next is due next April. So we could have had two bites at—not "this cherry", because it does not have the taste of one—this stone, once now and again next April. We decided that it was more sensible to do both jobs together in this way.
  Having dealt with one method of avoidance, I come to how the money is to be raised. There are several alternatives, and we have analysed them all very carefully. It is possible to argue that we should put the bulk of the increase on the employers. Many European countries do this. In Sweden, a country whose pensions I greatly admire, there is a splendid earnings related pension scheme where the employee pays nothing and the employers pay 10 per cent. of earnings every year. The employers say it makes the trade unions so modest in their wage claims that they are overwhelmingly repaid by this arrangement. I doubt whether that would happen here. I do not think that our employers can be blamed for saying that they do not want to follow the Swedish example.
  We are in the middle of a great export drive. To put it crudely, if we put the increase on the employer we put it on the cost of goods, and it would not help us now to overload him. We are therefore retaining the strict parity between the employer and employee which we have written into the White Paper. We continue to try to keep the two contributions roughly equal. The contribution will not be off-loaded on to the employer as it is in France, Italy and Belgium as well as Sweden.
  Could one off-load it on to the taxpayer? One could do it by increasing the Exchequer contribution, but we are keeping the Exchequer contribution to the same proportion. Could we increase it? It is my considered view that we

  1743
  should not. I am very concerned about the up-rating being one moving towards the new scheme. I want it to be in conformity with the principles of the scheme, in which the Exchequer contribution is about 18 per cent. If we avoided our difficulties in the next two or three years and made the Exchequer pay more now we should upset the balance of the new scheme. The level of taxation is high enough today [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that I have won some support.
  If we agree that the increase should not go on taxation, and if we think that it is very doubtful whether it is wise to put it on the employer, we are driven back to the fact that we must share it between the employer and contributor, knowing very well that with pensions it is only the contributor who really pays, whatever happens, because the employer puts the increase on the cost of goods. We may as well face it.
  How does one put the increase on the contributor? If I had followed the example of my Conservative predecessors I should no doubt have increased the flat-rate benefit by the necessary amount. That is what they did every time in their long period in office. They did not vary the graded element during the period after it was introduced. I have always hated flat-rate contributions. One of the greatest objects of the new scheme is to abolish the flat-rate poll tax and to make sure that the worse-off person pays less and the better-off person pays more. This was a principle we fought for, and I want to sustain it.
  In 1961 the flat-rate contribution for a man earning £12 a week represented 4·1 per cent. of his pay. It is now 6·9 per cent. But for the man earning £30 a week it is only 2·8 per cent., and even with a graduated contribution it is only 4·4 per cent., against 8·2 per cent. on earnings of £12. These contrasts are intolerable, and the main thing I thought we should do was to see to it that we spread the burden as far as we could.
  There is another figure that I think the hon. Gentleman would like to hear. To raise the money we need by a further increase in the flat-rate contribution would mean a rise of well over 3s. each for employer and employee in the stamp.
  1744
  In my view, this would have been intolerable.
  We concluded that it would not be right to follow the example of our predecessors, and therefore we have been at work on a method of adjusting the flat rate by as small an increase as possible, plus an increase in the graded element. This has been the reason for the delay. It is on this complicated manipulation for the first time of these two areas that we have been at work, and it will be found in the White Paper when it is published.
  Our decision to raise the graded element and put a portion of the increase on it, and not merely on the flat rate, makes urgent the problem I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. If I increase the graded element of the Conservative graded scheme, what do I do about the graded benefit? In order to explain this problem, I should remind hon. Members briefly how the Conservative swindle, as I have described it, works. It is constructed on the "brick" system. Each £7 10s. 0d. that a man pays in graduated contributions, matched by the same payment from his employer, earns him 6d. a week pension. As we pointed out at the time, the weakness of the scheme is that that will still be 6d. 30 years later. The pension is not revalued in terms of money values at the time it is paid out. Therefore, though the contributions are of great value to the Chancellor, because he gets the full value, what one draws out may be virtually worthless, and certainly keep one far below supplementary benefit level.
  This pension brick remains fixed in cash terms however long the interval between payment and receipt of the pension. The lack of any provision to re-value the pension to keep pace with changes in prices or earnings has always seemed to me inconsistent with what a State pension should provide. The arrangements for contracting out of the graduated scheme were so constructed, however, as to take no account of the possibility that in future years the cash value of the pension brick would need to be improved.
  It was the difficulties in relation to the contracted-out employees which lead us to the conclusion, in paragraph 101 of the White Paper, that graduated pensions earned under the present scheme would

  1745
  have to be excluded from the biennial review, which has been a feature of the new scheme. It is this proposal which has raised a storm of indignation from those employers and employees who had faithfully and loyally stayed contracted-in—and they are the great majority of firms and employees.
  They said, "Look what has happened. We have been loyal, we have been in since the beginning of the scheme and you are winding it up in 1972". During that period the value of the pension has dwindled, because of the reasons given. But the employer who contracted-out—that is instead of paying a contribution, retained his money, which could be invested in equities—did extremely well. The pension fund, which would go into the swollen equity market, could give to those members outside the scheme something equivalent to dynamism, whereas the person in the scheme was getting nothing. They said, "Before you wind this scheme up you must give us justice."
  Justice would be—and this is the proposal put to us—what is called the dynamism of the bricks from 1972 on. That is to say, every sixpence or whatever is collected would be revalued along with the flat-rate pensions. It always seemed illogical that we revalued the flat-rate pension every two years, but this little Conservative piece stuck to it was left like an appendix, dying away smaller and smaller, when everything else was changing. The proposition was, "Will you revalue that as well?" We think that is common justice to the people in the scheme. It becomes urgent to consider this problem at a time when we are proposing to upgrade the graded element of the contribution. I find it difficult to upgrade that element without giving something in return in benefit for what we have upgraded. My bias is therefore in favour of upgrading.
  I have to admit that those who are contracted out do have, and are making, a powerful and serious case. They say that they made a contract on a certain basis and that we are not entitled to change the terms of the contract, although I think that in winding up a concern like a pension scheme we are entitled to do so. The debate has started. I thought it was my duty to tell the House of the debate because it involves the nationalised industries. It involves 65,000
  1746
  pension schemes, which are lined up and working it out. I have already had long consultations with the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the National Association of Pension Schemes and the Life Offices Association, and I shall be seeing others too.
  We need to be careful about this. Whatever we do someone will be disappointed; that is one of our difficulties. Those who are contracted-in will be bitterly resentful of a Government which, as they say, have done nothing for them before the scheme is wound up. As I have said, this is a pension scheme, or a White Paper with green edges. It is true that we have to listen to the discussion a bit later, but it will be essential that when after the Recess we are considering the full details, the "across the range" details of the White Paper and the Bill we should also incorporate a statement on the future. That statement I am not ready to make yet, but I hope that discussions will be completed in time to make it soon after the Recess.
  Hon. Members: Swindle!
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Dean: The Chancellor did not complete the picture. What we may call the dirty end of the stick, he left to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We have the most astonishing position here where the Chancellor in his Budget Statement announces increases in taxation amounting to something like £340 million. No wonder he did not say anything about the increases in taxation, which is in effect what the contributions are for the workers of the country, when they amount to a far bigger figure than that which he is actually raising in the Budget.
  The right hon. Gentleman has lifted some of the veil this evening and has said that the additional sum required is no less than £430 million—a quite significantly larger figure than the very steep increase in taxation announced in the Budget. For the working people, those who pay their stamp week by week, this additional impost has to be added to the impost which has already been put on by the Budget. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman's calculations it appears that even this vast sum of £430 million extra may be something of an under-estimate of requirements in view of the other

  1747
  figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): It would be unfortunate if we were stuck with a wrong figure, and this is what the hon. Gentleman is using. My right hon. Friend said that there was a total amount of £430 million which had to be raised. He said that £70 million of this would be the normal Exchequer supplement, and that £360 million was the amount to be raised by contributions. It would be a pity if the higher figure were thought to be associated with the amount that is to be brought in from increased revenue from contributors.
  Mr. Dean: I have taken that second figure into account and am coming to it soon. The point about the £430 figure is that this is additional money required. It will have to come out of the pockets of people, either through the weekly stamp paid by employer or employee, or out of taxation. The total additional burden on the people is £430 million, this is my first point. In other words the Secretary of State is raising a bigger sum from the people than the Chancellor is raising in his Budget. No wonder the Chancellor did not want to spoil the effect by announcing that! He left the dirty job to be done by the Secretary of State.
  The second figure that the Minister of State mentioned is £360 million, which the right hon. Gentleman calculated would have to be raised by contributions, in other words from employers and employees. Doing a quick calculation I wonder if this figure will be adequate. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman, and the Chancellor in his Budget speech, that £250 mililon would be required for National Insurance benefits. I assume that this includes all the National Insurance benefits, long and short term, plus the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I also assume that in addition to that there will be an equivalent in war pensions. If it is on roughly the same basis as last time, I calculate that it will cost somewhere between £12 million and £13 million extra.
  I will also assume, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed this,
  1748
  that there will be an increase in supplementary benefits too. If that were to be on the same basis as the increase last time I calculate that it will cost an additional £44 million a year. The total figure involved is something like £307 million. That is the additional amount which I calculate, from the right hon. Gentleman's figures, will be required to meet the increased costs of benefits which will be introduced in the autumn, plus the equivalent increases in war pensions and supplementary benefits.
  If that is the case, as I calculate it, the sum left over to meet the imbalance—and the right hon. Gentleman said that this deficit was one which would increase substantially between now and 1972 unless further action were taken—is something like £120 million. I very much doubt, if my calculations are correct, whether that sum will be adequate. If it is not, it means that we can look forward to still further increases in contributions before the new scheme comes into operation, without any increase in benefits, but simply to keep the Fund in balance. I would say that the right hon. Gentleman is painting a very grim picture about the additional costs of these benefits, but I doubt whether it is grim enough, and whether still further increases in contributions will not be required from the people between now and the possible introduction of the new scheme in 1972.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he was having considerable difficulty in deciding how these contributions were to be found to meet this substantial Bill. No wonder he has had difficulties about this and no wonder it has taken him a long time. It was clear that he would reject the idea of a flat rate increase in contributions. He is on record on many occasions as saying that to increase the flat-rate contribution would be a totally unfair burden on the lower-paid members of the community. This is an understandable and acceptable argument. Having agreed that it is not practicable to offload a greater proportion of the cost on to the employer—and that the Chancellor will not pay more than his percentage, quite naturally—through taxation, then the right hon. Gentleman was inevitably left with some way of juggling around with some form of graduated contribution in return for a flat rate benefit.
  This looks to me very much what it will amount to. We shall clearly want to

  1749
  see, and shall study with great interest, the details when they are produced. From the details we have had from the right hon. Gentleman I am almost speechless when I think of his words about a Tory swindle. If a Tory Government introduced a swindle into pension schemes, I do not know how to describe the situation which I suspect we shall see with the relationship between contributions and benefit when the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper and the Bill are published either next week or shortly after the Recess.
  The other matter on which I want clarification is what appears to be the new doctrine enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman about the way in which contributions and charges raised in the various services for which he is responsible should be used. We had the most astonishing statement reported in the newspapers this morning strongly suggesting that the increase in charges for teeth and spectacles would not be used to finance improvements in the service for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible or to prevent cuts which would otherwise take place but would be siphoned off to another Ministry for a completely different purpose; namely, to assist it with comprehensive schools.
  Not only is that a strange doctrine but it completely contradicts the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman himself on 5th May when, in answer to questions following his statement, he made crystal clear that the increase of £3½ million in revenue to the Health Service would prevent cuts which would otherwise have to be made in that service.
  We are entitled to an explanation—this is closely relevant to the debate—because, if money raised for a service for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible is to be siphoned off and used on a completely different service, how can we be sure that the same will not apply to contributions raised through the National Insurance Scheme? It is all very well for the Minister of State to chuckle away about this. I hope that he will take it rather more seriously than he and his right hon. Friend appear to be doing. It could be a highly dangerous doctrine.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say—and this is what he appeared to be doing yesterday—that he
  1750
  can put on charges or contributions and the money will not go to improve the service for which he is responsible but may be siphoned off elsewhere, we have an entirely new and most undesirable doctrine entering into our social service arrangements. We are at least entitled to know, so that the House and the country may judge what both the right hon. Gentleman's statements and the additional burdens which he imposes actually mean.
  I am immensely disturbed by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made and by its implications for the stiff additional burden of contributions to be put on employers and employees, with very little prospect, in my view, that they will be adequate to meet the commitments for increased pensions and other benefits which we all recognise to be necessary in view of the substantial rise in the cost of living under this Government.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Archer: The House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for having announced in advance of the Second Reading debate on his new Bill the figures applicable to it, so that we have an opportunity to study them.
  I listened with no less attention to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and his noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), and I tried to relate their speeches to the Motion. I was puzzled to know what it is that the Government are alleged to have done wrong. Having heard them, I remain puzzled. If the Government had announced these increases in the Budget statement as though the question of cost did not arise, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would have been irresponsible in the highest degree.
  We all know that politicians do not give benefits to the public, whether they come from the Government or from measures suggested by hon. Members opposite at the very time when they urge us to cut public expenditure. This is not largesse distributed by politicians. Benefits of this kind arise from the resources created by the work of our constituents. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear that the increases would have to be paid for; he said so

  1751
  specifically. He even made some assessment of the cost.
  As I understand it, it is not disputed that the arithmetic relating to the contributions remained to be done and there was still more work to be done on the survey. In the circumstances, I gather that all that is alleged against the Government is that they ought not to have announced the increase until they were in a position to give precise details of how they were to be financed. What it amounts to is that they should not have offered this piece of good news to retirement pensioners. They should have kept it a closely guarded secret, as a matter of top security, to be kept, at all costs, from foreign espionage agents, until they were in a position to announce the details of how it was to be financed.
  I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite have acted wisely. The public may conclude that, if that is the worst they have to say about the Government, there cannot be a great deal wrong with the Government.
  If the Opposition had said that, perhaps, the increase was a little less than generous, some of us on this side might have felt inclined to be sympathetic with their view. It is perfectly true that the real purchasing power of pensions after these increases will be 20 per cent. higher than when hon. Members opposite were in power. But history may decide that 20 per cent. better than the previous Government still leaves a great deal to be desired. Yet that is not the criticism made.
  It certainly convinces me of this. From time to time those of us on this side of the House find matter in announcements from the Government to criticise. We have in common with hon. Members opposite that not everything announced by the Government is beyond reproach, but there our common ground ends. I am convinced that my hon. Friends and I are not likely to advance the causes which we have at heart by substituting for the present Government a Government consisting of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  It has not been suggested that these increases ought not to have taken place, and if they ought to have taken place, they have to be paid for. And the only question which arises is how that may
  1752
  best be done. In the Budget debate it was suggested that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have budgeted for a deficit. If I pursued that line of country I should be ruled out of order, and in any event the House has decided that we are not to pass the burden of paying for these increases to our children.
  I take issue with my hon. Friend as to whether a greater proportion of the burden might not have been placed on income tax. From time to time I have queried the advisability of the whole contributory system of paying for social service benefits. Income tax is by definition a method of imposing burdens in proportion to people's ability to bear them. My right hon. Friend has taken a commendable step in that direction by imposing graded contributions, but they still take into account only differences in earnings. They do not distinguish between sizes of families, or the costs of living in different areas, or between families with no special needs and those which include a disabled member. These may well be the kinds of inequalities which can be put right only by a national wages policy, but it might have been a step in the right direction if a greater proportion of the burden had been imposed on income tax rather than contributions.
  I do not believe, as hon. Members opposite appear to believe, that we are a highly over-taxed country. About 64 per cent. of our national income is spent privately as against 61 per cent. in the United States and 57 per cent. in Germany. It is also worth noting that the effect of having a contributory system is that all too often it shuts out people from social security benefits because they have failed to meet the contributory requirements, just in the case of those who have already had the rawest deal from life.
  On reflection, I would probably go some of the way with my right hon. Friend. I appreciate the force of the argument that when there is a contributory element, people feel a sense of entitlement, which is a healthy and satisfying feeling, and that it might discourage future Chancellors of the Exchequer from seeking to reduce benefits. And it may be true that people like to see some connection between their contributions and their benefits.

  1753
  But do the Government take the view that the proportion of 18 per cent. Exchequer contribution in the new pension scheme is sacrosanct? If it is not, might it be possible to assess a figure in excess of 70 per cent. as attributable to income tax in order that the contribution from wage packets may be a little reduced?
  I cannot speak for the constituents of other hon. Members, but my constituents have told me again and again that they believe that retirement pensions are too low, particularly for pensioners who will not benefit from the scheme announced by my right hon. Friend a few months ago. When I have explained that if they want increases in pensions they must be prepared to pay, they have said straightforwardly and honestly that they are prepared to pay. I echo something which was said a few months ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). He begged my right hon. Friend to ensure that the contributions for the new scheme were assessed at a realistic figure, so that we would not find that the scheme had run into deficit and in the process had imposed a burden on our children. It would be wrong if we were to maintain our standard of living at a level higher than we can collectively afford at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
  We are discussing tonight those sections of the population who sometimes find it difficult to speak for themselves and to form pressure groups. One section whom we should bear in mind as not being in a position to state its case is posterity. If my right hon. Friend the Minister assesses the contributions at a realistic figure, I hope that he will not get complaints from this side of the House that the cost is too high. Some of us on this side of the House may from time to time be critical of my right hon. Friend when he imposes burdens on those who are not in a position to bear them—on the older members of the population, those who normally need dentures and spectacles. But when he seeks to impose burdens on the young to give a fair deal to the old, burdens on the fit to give a fair deal to the unfit, and burdens on the lucky to give a fair deal to the unfortunate, we on this side will not complain.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: There is no doubt that what we have heard from the Secretary of State means that we are in a very serious mess concerning pension policy. I support the Motion, perhaps for a slightly different reason from that put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). I made a note in the middle of his speech saying that he was not being particularly constructive. I proposed to ask him what he would do and whether he would, for instance, again introduce a graduated pension scheme. I was utterly horrified when the Secretary of State stole my words and did precisely that. All that the Government are proposing to do is to out-swindle the Tories in their swindle. They christened it a swindle, and I believe that it was. Those of us who have asked why the Government kept the graduated pension scheme when they took office committed to getting rid of it know now that it was to save them when they got into the appalling mess which has been described today.
  It is almost a burden to have to say in debates on the National Insurance Fund that I was right, but many people have for some time pointed out in the House—I certainly have—that the trends, such as earlier retirement, sickness absenteeism and an ageing population, inevitably meant that the National Insurance Fund would run heavily into the red. These trends have been obvious for many years. The Secretary of State's statement this evening is not just an indictment of his Government for having done nothing in the last few years. It is an indictment of Governments of both parties which have had the management of our Insurance Fund for many years. It was precisely because the situation was so obvious, certainly to me, two or three years ago that we introduced the dynamic idea of the payroll tax to finance our social security scheme. As long as the Government try to finance this burgeoning expenditure by means of a static undynamic contribution, obviously they will run into trouble.
  I have said, and I repeat, that I am against the whole business of having to come to the House and make these announcements at two- or three-yearly intervals. I would much rather have the

  1755
  pension rate tied by law to the average wage in industry. I should like to see the rates go up automatically at, say, six-monthly or yearly intervals but not to have to come begging whatever Government may be in power for ad hoc increases whenever it seems that we can no longer allow the old-age pensioners to do without them. If one is to have automatic increases, one must have a contribution or tax system which will allow the income for the increases automatically to rise at the same time.
  We were told by the right hon. Gentleman—it is by no means the first time we have been told, and it has been obvious to many of us for many years—why the Insurance Fund has run into the red in the way that it has; pensioners are growing as a proportion of the total population and working people have to pay more for pensions in the future. This would not be catastrophic if we had economic growth. It becomes catastrophic because we have had stagnation for far too long.
  It does not matter too much to an individual if he is told that the cost of his mother's or father's pension will add an additional amount to his contribution provided that it comes out of additional income. If he knows that his income is rising at the same time, it is not too bad. As with an individual, so with the country as a whole. If only we had been financing these increases all the time by a dynamic growth economy, there would not have been too great a danger.
  I foresee real social danger ahead in this situation, however, and particularly the situation of the ageing population, because unless we can get an economic growth to take away the worst effect of these increases, we will have an almost revolutionary social situation where people simply down tools and refuse to pay the increased contributions which are to be put upon them.
  The second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that there was more sickness absenteeism. The last time we debated the National Insurance Fund in any detail, I begged the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Minister of Social Security to set up an investigation into the reasons for the dramatic increase in sickness absenteeism. The right hon. Lady waived the suggestion aside and
  1756
  said that it was impossible for Governments to take decisions on the basis of market research. I do not believe that it is. I believe that it would have been absolutely right to have set up that kind of investigation. It is right to do so now.
  We chase our tails around this House trying to find out how to cure the problem of 4 million working days lost through industrial stoppages. What about the 300 million working days lost through sickness absenteeism or the 23 million working days lost through industrial injuries?
  Let us take simply the 300 million days. If a tiny proportion of the effort which is to be spent in trying to reform our industrial processes and get the Industrial Relations Bill through the House was spent on trying to sort out the problem of the 300 million days that are lost through sickness absenteeism, we would have a much better pay-off in the long run. The Government had better take note of this, because I should hate to see the National Insurance Fund in the red for a third time and to be faced with another large bill.
  It is time that the problem was investigated. There have been considerably earlier retirements, which result in drawings on the Fund if people are over pensionable age. This again is something which we must look at carefully. If it is an increasing trend, and it may well be, the Insurance Fund will run into the red whatever we do. The Minister must not think that the extension of the Tory swindle will do the job. I do not believe that it will. It is an indictment of the last Conservative Government that they thought that the last Tory swindle when it was introduced would do the job. They should have seen then that it would manifestly fail to measure up to the task ahead.
  Neither do I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right in being optimistic about the chances of his new scheme contained in the White Paper with green edges solving the problem. I do not believe that scheme will bail us out of the serious financial problems which I see ahead for the Fund or for any financing of the social security system. I see ahead a dangerous situation, not just financially but socially, and we must consider this problem of the long-term social trends in this light.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I wish first to comment on the rather novel idea put forward by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that the suggestion that the increased charges for spectacles and dentures should be used for schools was a most dangerous precedent, and that money should always be used for the purpose for which it was raised. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that money raised on beer should be spent on bigger and better breweries and bigger and better pubs. I do not accept this idea.
  We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having spelt out to us what the options are. This has never before been done properly. He explained how we could achieve what we wished to achieve and how it could be paid for. He explained the methods of taxation, both fair and unfair, the poll tax and the graduated system. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite threw up their hands in horror and laughed at the astronomical sums mentioned by my right hon. Friend we have yet to have a suggestion from them how these increases can be paid for. The question must be put squarely to them: do they, or do they not want these increases and, if they do, how will they pay for them? They may say that they would never have reached this point, but I tend to suspect that approach because of their record on pensions. We are faced with this situation and the Government must deal with it.
  If increased pensions are to be paid across the Board, they must be paid for, and the £430 million must be raised. I feel that the Exchequer contribution could have been more generous. A system of taxation which is based upon ability to pay is the fairest system, as one does not pay unless one has the money to do so. The figures given by my right hon. Friend of the percentage of income in terms of flat rate contribution dramatically illustrated the inequity of the present stamp system. I should like to have seen a greater contribution from the Exchequer.
  My right hon. Friend, although he dangled the bait and the ideas before us, left us in the dark on how the proposed graduated system will work. I should
  1758
  prefer a system which advances progressively, with the low wage earner paying little, if anything, on the stamp, and a proportionate increase up the scale. There will be people who will complain that they do not like it. They object to having to pay the money.
  I have always found that if I sit down with my constituents and spell out what it means—explain where the money is going, what it is being used for, and show that it is necessary to have this increase in the stamp—they are more ready to accept it. It is a question of explaining that this is not—as so many hon. Members opposite seem to think—just another piece of vicious taxation; this is an opportunity of insuring oneself for one's old age, for one's sickness, and for periods of unemployment.
  I have found that when I have talked to my constituents about questions that interest them—questions of the disabled, the mentally handicapped, and others who are less fortunate and fit than they are—they are prepared to carry this burden, which becomes progressively less onerous as they become aware of the benefits that their payments are making not only for themselves in the future but for the less fortunate citizens around them.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, as I welcomed the statement made by the Chancellor in the Budget, but I regret the fact that it has taken such a long time to introduce a system based upon the ability to earn—a system which will contain within it a reasonable redistribution of money.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, this debate has concentrated mainly on pensions, although the Motion refers to all sorts of National Insurance and other benefits. I therefore assume that it will not be out of order to refer briefly to some other benefits, since although we have not been vouchsafed the information that these benefits will be increased in proportion to the proposed increase in pensions we may surely assume that they will be.
  Even the remarkable non-statement of the right hon. Gentleman referred mostly to pensions contributions. It seems from what the Minister deigned to reveal that

  1759
  we are soon to have a system of graduated pensions to pay for flat-rate benefits. This is a far cry from the grandiose scheme in the White Paper, published not long ago. We are now to have a graduated contribution to provide a flat-rate benefit at a subsistence level. That is the exact opposite to what we were promised.
  I want to concentrate the attention of the House for a few minutes on unemployment benefit rather than pensions matters. The question of unemployment was not mentioned once in the two hours 20 minutes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were lucky enough to have on 15th April. This was rather like a critic reviewing "Hamlet" without mentioning the Prince of Denmark, or a political critic today writing of the political situation without mentioning the Home Secretary.
  Unemployment was mentioned once or twice in the ensuing debate, but generally this nasty subject was swept under the carpet. This is understandable in present circumstances, but it would not be fair to the House to let this opportunity go by without reminding it of the facts. They are plain to see. We have had unemployment of over half a million now for two years, and it has been as high as 600,000 several times. Unfilled vacancies are running at about 300,000 and the cost to the taxpayer of unemployment benefit has increased from £58 million in 1966 to £125 million in 1968.
  These facts are obvious, but what is not so wellknown or appreciated in the country is that this Government, for their own reasons, are deliberately keeping unemployment at that figure. This may be disputed, so I want to state the proof for it. On the first page of the Financial Statement issued after the Budget, we read:
  "Relatively fast growth in output during 1968 was reflected in the labour market. Overtime working increased and towards the end of the year unemployment was falling sharply and unfilled vacancies were rising. It was against this background, combined with the need for a vast improvement in the balance of payments, that further measures to restrain consumption were required in November."
  Those further measures required that the unemployment figure, which was falling so dangerously for the Government's plans, had to be increased again.
  1760
  Last July the then Minister of Social Security saw that there was a certain amount of cheating in claims for supplementary benefit by unemployed people, and with great forethought and skill—I have commented on this before—in a statement on 25th July she said that she intended to ensure that benefits were not claimed unjustly and improperly at Ministry offices. She said that two steps would be taken. One was that all new claims from unemployed people under 45 would be carefully scrutinised, and if a man was not genuinely seeking work, he would be told that he must do so or his Supplementary benefit would not be paid.
  The second step she took was to announce that most fit young single people would be told that, whenever work was available in their locality, they should take it and that after four weeks without work they would not be paid a supplementary allowance. This, to my mind and in the view of the whole House, was a proper announcement and one on which the right hon. Lady should be applauded.
  Since then, I have many times tried to discover from the Department the result of this action, but have received no information except the number of people who have been screened in this way. I have tried to discover how many were found to have been claiming benefit improperly but I have never had the information.
  But what disturbs me is that, with this recognition in the Ministry that action was necessary to cut the cost of supplementary benefits to the unemployed, no parallel action has been taken by the Department of Employment and Productivity to ensure that claimants for unemployment benefit in the first year of their unemployment should be screened in this way. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has returned. If ever he has a spare moment—I mean, before the General Election—it would be a good idea for him to spend some time in an employment exchange. After the General Election, he may be doing that anyway, but I suggest that, in his capacity as a Minister, he should sit behind the counter for a few hours to see what happens.
  This is a very revealing experience. I was lucky enough last Christmas to spend a fortnight at my local labour

  1761
  exchange listening to the interviews with claimants for unemployment benefit. It was clear to me, as it would be to any hon. Member, that the claimants were in many cases getting away with murder. They were treated with great kindness and compassion by the clerks, but they recognised this and by setting almost impossible conditions for the employment they wanted they continued to draw their unemployment benefit for the first year without ever intending to take a job.
  The Secretary of State referred today to the earnings-related benefits which such people have drawn. I welcome this, but the fact that it applies for six months means that there is not much incentive to find a new job in that period. The earnings-related benefit rate is being taken advantage of by unemployed people. There are all sorts of devices for drawing benefit improperly. One can say that one wants a job at £30 within 10 minutes walk of one's home and refuse anything else. One can say that one wants a job which is just not obtainable in that place.
  When I visited my employment exchange, a gentleman who had obviously seen better days, judging from his clothes and his whole appearance, said that the only job that he would accept was one as a croupier. I doubt whether he had ever been a croupier. There are such jobs available in Liverpool, but I doubt whether, if he had applied, he would have been offered one. As long as he insisted that he was a croupier and wanted that type of job he was able to draw unemployment benefit because such a job could not be found for him. One can make oneself so unattractive to one's prospective employer that, on being interviewed, one will be turned down. There are many other ways of remaining uneemployed.
  All of these devices were foreseen in the National Insurance Act, 1965, in which the legislators, in their wisdom, stated:
  "… after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which he becomes unemployed as in the circumstances of the case is reasonable, employment shall not be deemed to be unsuitable by reason only that it is employment of a kind other than employment in his usual occupation".
  A great deal of money is to be saved on unemployment benefit simply by telling clerks at employment exchanges that after a reasonable time—it might be a month—
  1762
  of a man not having accepted any of the jobs offered to him, he should be told, "You have had your chance. There are jobs available which you could do, and while you may not want to do them, you must either accept one of them or forfeit your unemployment benefit."
  Mr. James Dempsey: That happens now.
  Mr. Fortescue: When did the hon. Gentleman last sit behind a counter at an employment exchange and hear what goes on?
  Mr. Dempsey: I admit that I have not sat behind such a counter. However, I have been the chairman of a committee responsible for seeing that those who require work get work Without exception, when we told men that we could not find jobs in their particular skills but could find other jobs for them which they either had to take or have their insurance benefit disallowed, they took the jobs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that what he is recommending has been standard practice in Lanarkshire for many years.
  Mr. Fortescue: The hon. Gentleman is referring to cases which were brought to his attention. I am referring to cases which arise at employment exchanges where the clerks show claimants a generous and compassionate attitude which allows them to get away with refusing to work for considerable periods.
  Mr. Crossman: I appreciate how much the hon. Gentleman knows about this subject from practical experience. Would he perhaps agree—I speak with knowledge of supplementary benefits—that the clerks at employment exchanges tend to take a certain view according to the amount of unemployment in the area? In an area of full employment they tend to take the view which the hon. Gentleman is recommending. In an area of relatively heavy unemployment they probably reasonably realise that not quite the same view need be taken.
  Mr. Fortescue: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but in Liverpool, the area about which I am speaking, we have a comparitively high unemployment rate. Although the unemployment figures are running at about 3·9 per cent, many unskilled jobs are available. For example, about 200 Liverpool buses are off the roads because drivers and conductors cannot be found to man them.

  1763
  It seems that the people of Liverpool do not want to work on the buses, even though many who could be trained for this work are drawing unemployment benefit.
  I have calculated that the cost of increasing the unemployment benefit by 10s. a week in November will be £15 million a year. That sum could be paid for if the number of fully unemployed were reduced by about 10 per cent. I therefore suggest that before the right hon. Gentleman sets his mind to raising £15 million for this purpose by increasing contributions, he should consider the possibility of instructing, through his right hon. Friend—although that would be necessary, unemployment benefits are his responsibility, since they are paid through employment exchanges—clerks at employment exchanges to tighten up and ensure that claimants for unemployment benefit do not receive payment for more than a certain time without their cases and attitudes being carefully examined. After all, instructions of this type are issued to clerks in the offices of his Ministry. The decision to increase contributions is being taken too facilely, and I hope that my comments will be borne in mind by the right hon. Gentleman.
  As for pensions, I agree that something drastic must be done. When one considers the other benefits, however, much more should be done administratively before one need take the last refuge of increasing taxation.
  Am I right in believing that the Government are not entirely enthusiastic about lowering the rate of unemployment? Do their old Socialist dogmas and theories now reside in a supreme being in Washington, which is demanding that the level of unemployment be kept quite high to demonstrate that we are deflating the economy?
  9.14 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I was shocked, as were all hon. Members, by the cynicism of the Secretary of State's explanation of the Chancellor's extraordinary omission to give an indication of the method by which the pensions increase would be financed and by the announcement of the enormous extent of the deficit which has
  1764
  evidently opened wide in the National Insurance Fund.
  But more shocking to me than the action of the Government in these matters is the existence of a system which makes it possible to offer to the public benefits in one speech, without any explanation of how they will be paid for, and then, in a speech on a subsequent date, to give a vague and indefinite suggestion of the way in which the money may be raised.
  It has been one of the problems of the National Insurance Fund from its very initiation by my great countryman, Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, that its budget has been incomprehensible. We all remember the slogan of "9d. for 4d." with which Lloyd George launched the scheme. The swindling element was there from the beginning, because it was perfectly plain that honesty could not go hand in hand with such a slogan. It was perfectly plain that it was a political stunt from the beginning. It seems unfortunate that people's entitlement, people's money, people's contributions should be wrapped up in a political stunt, and not in strictly correct mathematical principles.
  I am reminded of the jingle:
  "Oh, what a tangled web we weave
  When first we practise to deceive."
  Just look at the stage that National Insurance has come to now after 60 years of deception. The public think primarily of the benefits. People have been taught to regard National Insurance as a bran tub. Carefully, over the years, politicians have been obliged to prevent the public from thinking of costs, so we have a built-in attitude among the voters all the time to demand more and more from National Insurance because they have been taught to forget that they themselves have to pay for it.
  The second dangerous fact, where so much money is involved, is that even in a mature democracy such as ours, the accounts of the Fund are absolutely incomprehensible. We have reached the stage, unfortunately, where the whole contraption is collapsing as we watch. None of us can be glad about that. With National Insurance it is obvious that we have reached virtually the point of bankruptcy and breakdown. Here is a system with no funds—because the funds are

  1765
  only make-believe; with no commitments—because no one can predict 10 years hence what his entitlement under National Insurance will be; and with no principles at all.
  And now the Government's problem is how to raise £430 million. I commend the courage of the Secretary of State in deciding to tackle the problem with one stroke instead of with two strokes. That was the right way to do it.
  What ways are open to him? He ran through them, but he did not say all that he might have done about the different methods. Last year the Government resorted to taking £200 million from the reserves. That was pure inflation, as no one was able seriously to deny. I suppose that the supervision of the International Monetary Fund has now come so close that resorting to that particular tap is no longer possible. But we still have had no explanation of whether that £200 million is to be paid back from increased contributions or from the Revenue, even after this lapse of time.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of drawing more money from employees. The employees were always, from the very beginning, part of the "9d. for 4d." They were expected to put in 4d. No one quite knew at the time, or knows now, precisely why the employers were expected to put in 3d., or why the Revenue was expected to put in 2d. All that was veiled in mystery. Yet these strange anomalies which were imported into that first scandalous National Insurance prospectus are with us still.
  If the £430 million is to be raised from employees, the problem at once arises as to which of the two coexistent systems should be used. If the extra cost is laid on the flat-rate contribution, the Secretary of State will be doing what he himself has condemned and, in the view of everyone who has studied the subject, has quite rightly condemned. The flat rate poll tax is bitterly regressive, and so far from National Insurance being the cure for family poverty, the contribution is now so high that it has become one of the contributory causes of it.
  From the White Paper, which many of us have studied with the greatest possible care, we have deduced that in future it is the Secretary of State's
  1766
  aim, which we support, that those below the national average wage should have their burden lightened so far as it is possible to do so; people earning up to about £18 a week, I think, under the original White Paper plan would have some remission of their burden, because the flat rate system would go and the graduated system would leave them somewhat better off than they are now.
  This is an excellent idea, but if in the meantime there has to be a temporary increase in the flat-rate contribution it will make the jolt as we change from the existing system to the new system ever more marked. I therefore quite understand why the Government were not able to screw the £430 million from employees via the flat-rate contribution; they could not possibly do so.
  Then there is the question of the graduated scheme. The Government, wrongly, are crucifying themselves here on the principle that, if there are graduated contributions, there must also be graduated benefits. I shall return to this question later on. While the Government persist in this quite unnecessary attitude, they are simply running into further problems.
  I come to the possibility of raising more from the employers. What the Secretary of State did not say was that the burden on employers already, thanks to the Budget increase in S.E.T., is such that there would be an outcry and a revolt if this extra charge was put on them, and it might be impossible to raise that money from employers, because the burden of taxation would become so severe that the system would break down.
  Finally, there is the wretched taxpayer's contribution to National Insurance. The right hon. Gentleman glibly said, as though it were just a matter of the simplest arithmetic, that £70 million would be taken from the taxpayers—one has only to snap one's fingers and £70 million comes from the Budget; nobody knows exactly how it is financed or paid for; nobody can find it in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. It is just the way the Government carry on—the taxpayer can lose £70 million; transfer it to National Insurance, and nobody need be any the wiser. I can see that the suggestion might have been made that the taxpayer's contribution should have

  1767
  been even more than £70 million; but the Exchequer has evidently stuck at that.
  We are moving towards graduation, and the only graduated scheme available is the old Conservative graduated scheme. The Secretary of State, eating all his words, has now decided that the stone which the builders rejected must become the head of the corner. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, the Conservative graduated scheme is made up of bricks. It is now made up of a large number of bricks and the right hon. Gentleman will find that he is ramming his head against a brick wall if he thinks that he can tinker with the arithmetic of it. Although the arithmetic may be hard, and although it is easy to say that a system which simply gives a person back what he has put in, without large increments of interest and without allowance for inflation, can be called a hard scheme; but it is at any rate a mathematically precise one. If the right hon. Gentleman begins to lay his hands on that scheme and tries to take more out of it than his is putting in, he will find that he is dashing his head against a brick wall, because it is a scheme built upon principle. If it is once decided to water down the principle of that scheme, the repercussions will be so great that no amount of blarneying talk with the Life Offices Association, or the Association of Pension Funds, or the representatives of employers, will make it possible to hide what is happening.
  I hope that the Secretary of State, in the dilemma in which he finds himself, will be prepared to think again about the principles in his White Paper, because they are not tenable. He should look at the whole of the basic principles which govern this tremendous cash movement which goes on in National Insurance. In his White Paper he has muddled two elements together which ought at all times to be kept separate. One element is the principle of charity, which gave rise to the concept of National Insurance, which is based on the idea of money transfer from the fortunate to the unfortunate. The other element is the concept of self-help, which in this century has given rise to the whole movement towards national savings. The concepts of charity and of self-help are incompatible, but the Secre-
  1768
  tary of State is trying to run them into one great scheme.
  We have seen today the problems which he is giving himself by so doing. If he would only concentrate upon the need, through the National Insurance system, to relieve poverty, and would neglect the idea that National Insurance should be directed towards interfering with the whole movement of private savings and personal provision for retirement through people's own foresight, he would find his finances a great deal easier to manage. I will give him some brief words of advice. Do not compete with the private sector in things which the private sector does best. There is no point in trying to devise, as in the White Paper, a backstairs way of taking into the State's hand the benefits of people's natural wish to provide for themselves. Secondly, do not raise taxes in order to give the most money to the people with the least need.
  It is possible to approach the problem of eliminating poverty in three ways: by selectivity, which gives the most money to the people with the greatest need; by universal benefits, which treat everyone the same; and by graduated benefits which give the most money to the people with the least need. The British people will revolt against more and more taxes being pushed upon them to satisfy the nostrum of the Secretary of State about this. He must think again about this idea of State graduated benefits right across the board.
  I am not saying that there is not a place for graduated benefits, particularly for maintenance or income during short-term periods of sickness and unemployment. The concept in his White Paper is quite wrong if he feels that he will fasten on us for all time a State system which would take away from the private sector this function of assisting people to provide for themselves.
  Thirdly, he should take the element of redistribution completely out of the rest of the Budget. The Budget could be defined as a double-yolked egg in this respect. Part of what is raised in taxation is required to pay for what the Government need to do for themselves. Part of what is raised in taxation is used to redistribute money again to the rest of the community. The Government are

  1769
  acting in a two-fold capacity. First, they are raising money for themselves and, secondly, they are raising it in order to pass it back, probably in many cases to the very same people who have subscribed it. They are running these two operations into one and doing them simultaneously. I ask the Secretary of State to look at this entire redistributive activity of the State, which is now incorporated in the Budget, to separate it completely out, and to study the net effect of what is happening.
  Some months ago I put down a Question asking what was the net effect of all State compulsory transactions with the individual, in both directions. I was informed by the Treasury that it could not give the reply because it had never worked the figures out. After I pressed the matter they did, with great courtesy, work the figures out for me. But it took them several months to let me know the simple transactions, which are already obligatory, and what their effect was.
  The national minimum wage study, which is an extremely interesting paper, has some rudimentary tables arriving at the net effect of taxes, National Insurance contributions, family allowances and the other types of benefit to which the individual is entitled. But it is only at the most rudimentary stage. While the Government have not done their simple sums they will always be at sea when facing the problems of long-term National Insurance policy.
  Will the Secretary of State define the purpose of National Insurance, because I am sure that at present he has not got a very clear idea as to what it is for. Let him clarify the obligations of the National Insurance Fund as he sees them; let him spell them out. I hope that he will come to the House and do so. Let him also clarify what he considers the sources of its income ought to be. Let him look at this great simultaneous movement of cash into the Exchequer and out again, let him understand all the different ramifications of these inward and outward movements and then he will be able to set out his National Insurance charges in a form which our democracy will be able to bear. If he refuses to do that, as I can see from his face he intends to do, then National Insurance will remain in the eyes of the public an incomprehensible swindle.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not think we could have had a better justification for this debate than the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are still very little wiser as to the details of how the pensions announced in the Budget Statement will be paid for, or to whom they will be paid. It is true that some of the veils have been lifted, but there is still a great deal to be disclosed. No employer, no employee, no self-employed person has as yet the slightest idea of the additional contribution he will have to pay, and he is no wiser as a result of the Secretary of State's speech.
  It was suggested by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) that perhaps this Motion was out of place, because, he said, if this was the worst that could be said of the Government, then we might perhaps be misleading the public. The only implication of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he knows that there is a very great deal worse to be laid at the door of this Government.
  Mr. Archer: I rise merely to correct the record. What I said was that the public might conclude that if that was the worst right hon. Genelemen opposite could say of the Government, then there was not much wrong with the Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: The implication is that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a great deal more wrong with the Government. Before I develop the case that we have made in this Motion, there are three points I want to press on the Minister of State arising out of the speech made by his right hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) asked the Secretary of State whether his estimates, which he said were based on present trends, were based on current levels of unemployment. This is immensely important, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer that. Second, the Secretary of State told us that the Exchequer contribution to the total sum of the £430 million, which will have to be raised, will be £70 million in a full year. That means that there will be about £20 million, or perhaps a little under, to be raised in the last quarter of 1969–70. In addition to that, I would

  1771
  estimate that we shall need about £15 million for war pensions and supplementary benefits. Will the Minister of State tell the House whether these sums, together about £35 million, are provided for in the estimates on the basis of which the Chancellor made his Budget Statement?
  Third, we come to perhaps the most curious thing of all in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—the question of timing. No doubt there were a number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite who heard their right hon. Friend's speech upstairs yesterday. To judge from the way the Press has reported that meeting very fully this morning, everyone gained the impression that the White Paper would be published before Whitsun and that the Bill would be presented before we rose for the Whitsun Recess. Twenty-four hours later the Secretary of State has told us that this will now come after the Recess. We have become used in the past few weeks to some pretty odd antics by the right hon. Gentleman, but to turn upside down in the course of 24 hours the timing of an important Bill of this sort seems the most curious of all.
  The Opposition have tabled the Motion of censure partly to express our condemnation of what seems to many in the House and outside to be a pretty disreputable episode, and partly to give right hon. and hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends, a chance to probe the Government's intentions, and the Government a chance to explain what they were up to. In part we have succeeded on the second object, and I shall proceed mainly with the first.
  I should like to say one thing in supplementation of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said about the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security being put up to defend this case at the end of the debate. The principal object of our attack is the Chancellor, for it was he who in his Budget Statement sparked all this off. Although there will be many questions of a social security nature that the Minister may wish to answer, our accusation is against the Chancellor because of the effect all this will have on his Budget judgment, of which he made no mention, and the part it will play in the Budget strategy in the current year. Why is no
  1772
  Treasury Minister answering the debate? We know that the Treasury Ministers have serious preoccupations with the International Monetary Fund and others, but they must realise what is at stake is the credibility of the Government's economic policy. Is not a single Treasury Minister prepared to defend the Chancellor? Where are they?
  It is bad enough that the nation should suffer the serious errors of judgment which led to an even more strict supervision by the I.M.F., but it is worse still that the Chancellor should not face up to the consequences and ensure that at least a Treasury Minister is here to defend and explain what he has been doing. There is a great deal of explaining to do.
  I return to the basic question: why was the statement of the benefits included in the Budget Statement? It is abundantly clear that no one—not even the Secretary of State—then knew what the contributions would have to be, and how they would be paid. The Government were not ready to make an announcement about contributions, so why did they announce the details of the pension increases? The Chancellor gave no reason in his statement but simply introduced this with the words:
  "I am now able to announce that …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1014.]
  It is the exception that such an announcement should be made in a Budget speech. It is true that my noble Friend Lord Butler did it in 1952. But why? It was because he was dealing with a package, of which pension increases were a part; consumer food subsidies were cut, taxation was reduced and welfare benefits to those at the lower end of the scale were increased. The present Home Secretary mentioned pensions in his Budget Statement in November, 1964, but he did it because he said this was the Government's top priority. I suppose that in those heady days we could forgive them that. Every other single pension increase has been announced outside the Budget. I shall not weary the House with all the details; I have the dates.
  Perhaps more significant is that on every single occasion, including that when the Home Secretary announced a pension increase in the Budget, it always included full details of the contributions that

  1773
  would have to be paid, often in the same sentence. Here only the benefits were announced in the Budget; yet they were totally irrelevant to the Chancellor's Budget message. They were no part of a general package of tax changes, though the Secretary of State tried to pretend that they were. I have searched the Budget statement for a link between the pensions and allowances he mentioned. It was not even part of any coherent strategy for the social services.
  One is driven to the conclusion that the benefits were put in for no other reason than an attempt to sugar the pill that the nation was having to swallow. There can have been no other conceivable purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had three harsh Budgets. He could not face the mauling that he would receive at the hands of his party, and had to have a sweetener. Therefore, he put in the pension increases and brazened out the consequences, though I am willing to bet that there must have been times during his winding up speech in the Budget debate when he wished he had left it out.
  This explanation is entirely consistent with the rest of the Chancellor's strategy. We have the business of the health charges. The Secretary of State said on the radio the other day of the statement about health charges:
  "This is a statement which we've had for a very long time. I had hoped to see it in the Budget speech."
  But, of course, he was not allowed to have it in the Budget speech. The Budget was to be Roy's day; nothing was to be allowed to tarnish the glitter and glory surrounding the Chancellor's big day of the year. Nothing was to muffle the big cheers as he sat down at the end of his speech. Therefore, we had charges out and pension benefits in. It is a squalid, disreputable story of which the Chancellor and all who participated and connived in it should be deeply ashamed.
  It is not merely that they are seeking to conceal from the people the true cost of the Budget announcements, though that is bad enough. Far more serious is the fact that they are putting at risk any remaining confidence our creditors overseas may have in our financial integrity as a nation. Are we to believe that the I.M.F. and its party under Mr. Richard Goode had nothing whatever
  1774
  to say about this when they were here at the time of the Budget? How does it look to our creditors and the cold and unsympathetic eyes of those to whom this spendthrift Government have put Britain deeper and deeper into pawn when they see the Chancellor even now, after devaluation, after the trade figures and after the worst year we have had for decades, still trying to pretend that welfare benefits can be enjoyed without being paid for?
  Hon. Members opposite who squeal and kick when our creditors seek to impose conditions before granting us further indulgence should ask themselves: Do episodes like this establish confidence in the Government's credit overseas? Do episodes like this enhance the Government's reputation for financial responsibility? Or do they not further undermine faith in the determination of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to put their affairs in order, to behave responsibly, and to live within the nation's means?
  It is not merely a question of appearances, for the whole Budget strategy is affected. Perhaps it was more than a Freudian slip when the announcer on the 8.30 news this morning called it the "Budget's tragedy", though he corrected himself. The Chancellor said nothing about this aspect in his Budget statement. The Secretary of State said nothing about the effect on the Budget strategy this evening, and I have little confidence that the Minister of State is capable of throwing any light on this aspect of the matter.
  Yet, always, improvements in social security benefits increase the burden on the Exchequer, always they increase the burden on employers and put up costs, always they take money from savers and put it into the hands of spenders. Was none of this of any account in the Chancellor's Budget strategy? I remind the House that 70 per cent. of the increases which he announced have to be borne by industry, in S.E.T. and corporation tax. This stamp increase of an unknown amount—we still do not know how much it will be; it could be £200 million—is likely to land on industry. Is that not relevant to the Budget intentions? It is a further charge on companies' liquidity and it is bound to have an effect on investment.

  1775
  What about the effect on the individual firm which has to make up its estimates for the future and, perhaps, for tenders? I quote here from a letter from a firm of builders in my constituency:
  "We have another problem in our industry regarding the unknown increase in the National Insurance contributions. A lot of work is carried out on what we call in the industry 'fixed price tenders', and we are expected to include in our estimates for increases such as this, but it appears that information will not be available until our Prime Minister decides. Just another problem that our present Government presents to industry."
  Did the Chancellor give a moment's thought to that, or would he have cared a twopenny damn even if he had when his own vanity was at stake? The truth is that we have been treated to a "Dance of the Seven Veils" which would have put Salome to shame. The Government have tantalised the House with a striptease performance which would have been entertaining were it not about a deadly serious matter at a desperate time in our national fortunes.
  Look at what has happened. At first, the total amount was entirely unknown—£250 million plus "a substantial extra provision". Today, we have been told that the total is £430 million, and even that includes nothing for war pensions and nothing for increases in supplementary benefits. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State wishes to correct that, he will have his opportunity. But the contributions are not £250 million. They will have to be £360 million, that is, £1 million a day extra in National Insurance contributions. It is a shattering figure.
  At first, we had only the vaguest idea of how it would be split. The Chancellor said that it would be done fairly. Under pressure, he conceded, somewhat reluctantly,
  "I can assure the House that there is no question of employers being made to pay more than their normal share of the contribution …"
  What is the normal share for the employer?—the same as when the increase of 10s. was made last time? Of course not. It will be a great deal more. How on earth can firms budget when the uncertainties are as great as that?
  Under further pressure, the Chancellor added:
  1776
  "… we have to work out the details how, in the transition to an earnings-related pension scheme, this can most fairly be placed on different individuals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 154–7.]
  Today, that was elaborated by the Secretary of State. He tried to blind us with jargon. I must say that tax jargon is pretty awful, but social security jargon is just frightful. We heard of "dynamising the bricks". But what did emerge is that employees' contributions will be graded by income.
  But there is to be no real difference to the benefits. There is a vague indication that a small slice of the pensions of those who are contracted in—the graduated bit of the pensions of those contracted in—may be kept in line with the cost of living; but there is to be nothing whatever for the millions who are contracted out. Graduated contributions and flat-rate benefits—and no wonder the Chancellor was not too worried when he had to leave that out of his Budget, for it is indistinguishable from a tax; the Chancellor has boasted that for two successive Budgets he has not put up the rates of direct taxation, and we are back again with his devious behaviour.
  Amidst all the elegance of language, all the lucidity of expression, the House now realises that there lies revealed another shabby Socialist trick—pensions are put up and the cost is left to be announced. The Secretary of State has been the Chancellor's fall guy. But is not the real victim of this miserable story the wellbeing of the nation?
  In supporting this Motion in the Lobby tonight, my right hon. and hon. Friends will not only be condemning the irresponsibility of an act of crass stupidity, but will be condemning the Government as utterly unfit to remain in office.
  9.47 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): It is clear that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) must have prepared that speech several days ago. It bore no relation to the debate. Without any disrespect to my hon. Friends or to hon. Members opposite who have spoken, this censure debate ended when my right hon. Friend replied to the noble Lord. My right hon. Friend frankly gave answers to the

  1777
  questions put to him without any attempt to conceal.
  I say straight away that the accusations against the Chancellor of the Exchequer by hon. Members opposite were totally unjustified. He made no attempt whatever to conceal the facts and he said with clarity that substantial amounts would have to be raised in addition to the sums needed in order to pay for the increased benefits. In case I should miss saying so later, let me make it clear that we are talking about retirement pensions, sickness, unemployment and other benefits, about industrial injuries benefits, war pensions and supplementary benefits, and let there be no mistake about that.
  There was some talk of the deceit of the Chancellor, of his attempting to hide the burden, of squalid tricks and so on. It is clear that he made no attempt to conceal and he did not in fact conceal. During the course of the debate, I have been trying to work out what the Opposition's case was. What are they complaining about? For one thing, they seem to be worried whether the Bill will be presented to the House before or after Whitsun. I do not see what difference it makes, but the Opposition will not be allowed to push us into bringing the Bill forward before we have completed our consultations.
  Lord Balniel: It has been announced today that the increased tax and contributions will amount to £430 million. Every newspaper I read this morning reported that the Secretary of State for Social Services had informed the Parliamentary Labour Party that the Bill would be published before the Whitsun Recess. It is now announced that it will not now come out until after the Whitsun Recess. Why has there been this change of plan within the last 12 hours?
  Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend made clear why he had decided that it would be better, because of the important issues which he had outlined and which some hon. Members seem not to understand, to have further time to consult others. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite look back through their record they will see that on many occasions they have brought forward uprating Bills at times very much closer to the date when the increases came into effect.
  1778
  I have tried to understand what the Opposition are saying. They claim that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should perhaps have delayed making an announcement until the whole package was tied up. Why should he have done so? Surely it was important that retirement pensioners and others should know that they would get increases in the autumn to protect them against rises in prices. It was important that the Chancellor should say that. There would have been a great deal of consternation and misunderstanding had he not done so.
  Mr. Dean rose——
  Mr. Ennals: I will not give way. I have already given way.
  Mr. Dean rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) must keep his seat.
  Mr. Ennals: The noble Lord said—[HON. MEMBERS "You cannot take it."] I have already given way to the noble Lord, and I was given very little time in which to reply.
  The noble Lord talked about the Labour Party's record in pension increases. The standard rate of benefit is £4 10s. 0d. for a single person and £7 6s. 0d. for a married couple. Those rates were introduced in October, 1967. They are one-third higher than the corresponding rates when we took office in 1964. Even after taking into account the changes in the cost of living between mid-October, 1964, and mid-October, 1967, they provided an increase in real value of 20·2 per cent. for the single person and 20·7 per cent. for a married couple compared with the October, 1964, rate. When the increase is introduced in the autumn this year the pension rates will again return to 20 per cent. in real terms above the figure in existence when we took office.
  Hon. Members have criticised the administration of the National Insurance Fund. Their accusations were empty. They know from their own experience that trends can never be forecast with total accuracy. This applies to the increase in the number of old people. It is interesting to note that in 1948 retired

  1779
  people were 20·4 per cent. of the population, in 1967 25·2 per cent. and in 1970 will be 26·4 per cent. The number of old people in our society is constantly increasing, of which we have good reason to be proud because it is largely due to the benefits of the Welfare State. It is not possible to be certain about either the number of old people there will be to receive pensions or, for example, the level of sickness benefit during a particular year.
  I have been waiting to hear during the debate what the Conservatives would do. At no time have they indicated what their line would be. As far as I can see, their minds are a total blank, except that of the noble Lord, whose mind seems to be cluttered. What would they do? Would they postpone the increases for another year, as they did when they were in power, at the expense of the old people and others entitled to benefit? Would they have brought in a smaller increase? Would they, as the hon. Member for—I have forgotten his constituency for the moment—
  Mr. Dean: Somerset, North.
  Mr. Ennals: Exactly right. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We enjoyed that. But let us get back to the debate.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: I simply want the Minister to answer the question about unemployment trends. We were promised an answer.
  Mr. Ennals: They are based on current trends.
  When we had that happy laughter across the Chamber I was laughing to myself because when the hon. Member made his speech, at one moment he said that we would have to call forth too much in contributions and the next moment he was saying that we would not be raising enough. That is typical Conservative policy; you put your money and you take your choice. There is no need to take a position; every variation is given.
  I found it difficult to understand what are the intentions of the Conservative Government—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear both sides.
  Mr. Ennals: That was very great laughter, but I wonder what would have
  1780
  been the reaction of those who will benefit from this pension increase had they been listening to the attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite at that moment. They would, perhaps, like to have known, even if the House is to be denied that right, what Conservative policies are on these questions.
  If the party opposite believe that there needs to be an increase in benefits and, therefore, an increase in contributions, and if they believe that the National Insurance Fund should be put into balance, as I am sure they do, how would they raise the contributions? Would they have done as they always did in the past and put it entirely on the flat rate? Would they have seen that this would be a very heavy burden on the low-paid workers and would they not agree—I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree—that it was exactly the right policy to determine that this burden should be spread: that those who earn least should pay least and those who earn more should pay more? This, of course, is the principle of the new scheme which we will be introducing to the House.
  I very much share the point of view expressed by the spokesman from the Liberal benches, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who said that he did not like the necessity of constantly coming to the House to get an Act of Parliament to increase pensions. Neither do we. That is what we have written into our new scheme.
  Not only will we in future have a scheme which will be earnings related in contributions and earnings related in benefits, but there will be a guarantee for existing pensioners that they will not have to wait the three years or more which they had to do in the days of the Conservative Party but that automatically, every two years, they can be assured that their standards will rise.
  The Opposition are simply playing politics with pensions, as they are seeking to do with every issue on which they can lay their hands. We are determined, as we always have been, to put at its proper place the welfare of those who are in sickness or unemployment or are old. We are convinced that it is our responsibility as a society to protect those who are in need and that this must be borne by those who are in employment. Those

  1781
  who are fit must be responsible for those who are in distress. I have no doubt that the Motion will be defeated.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 273.

  Division No. 221.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant, Anthony

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Neave, Airey

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Gurden, Harold

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Astor, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nott, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Balniel, Lord

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bell, Ronald

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pardoe, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hay, John

  Peyton, John

  Biffen, John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Blaker, Peter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Body, Richard

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pym, Francis

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Holland, Philip

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Braine, Bernard

  Horden, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Brewis, John

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hunt, John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Burden, F. A.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Clark, Henry

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Sharples, Richard

  Clegg, Walter

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Silvester, Frederick

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cordle, John

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Costain, A. P.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Speed, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Lane, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Crowder, F. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Dance, James

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lubbock, Eric

  Temple, John M.

  Dean, Paul

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

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

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Doughty, Charles

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Drayson, G. B.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Waddington, David

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Eden, Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Wall, Patrick

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Marten, Neil

  Walters, Dennis

  Emery, Peter

  Maude, Angus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mawby, Ray

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Farr, John

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. W'lliam

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Foster, Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Monro, Hector

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wylie, N. R.

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Gower, Raymond

  Murton, Oscar

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Gardner, Tony

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Anderson, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Archer, Peter

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mapp, Charles

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Marquand, David

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Barnes, Michael

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Barnett, Joel

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Baxter, William

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Millan, Bruce

  Beaney, Alan

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Binns, John

  Hamling, William

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hannan, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Blackburn, F.

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moyle, Roland

  Booth, Albert

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Boston, Terence

  Hattersley, Roy

  Murray, Albert

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hazell, Bert

  Neal, Harold

  Boyden, James

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Newens, Stan

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

  Brooks, Edwin

  Henig, Stanley

  Norwood, Christopher

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Oakes, Gordon

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Oram, Albert E.

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

  Horner, John

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hoy, James

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Padley, Walter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hunter, Adam

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hynd, John

  Park, Trevor

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

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

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dell, Edmund

  Judd, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dewar, Donald

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rankin, John

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dickens, James

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Driberg, Tom

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

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

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Rodgers, Williams (Stockton)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rogers George (Kensington, N.)

  Ellis, John

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  English, Michael

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Ryan, John

  Ennals, David

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Ensor, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Luard, Evan

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Finch, Harold

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Slater, Joseph

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCann, John

  Small, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacColl, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Foley, Maurice

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Ford, Ben

  Mackie, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Forrester, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Fowler, Gerry

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  1784

  1785

  Thornton, Ernest

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Tinn, James

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Whitaker, Ben

  Winnick, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Whitlock, William

  Woof, Robert

  wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wallace, George

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Mr. Neil McBride.

  Weitzman, David

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

  Ordered,

  That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Immigration Appeals Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Grey.]

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL
  Clause 7

    REVIEW BY TRIBUNAL OF DETERMINATION OF ADJUDICATION
    Lords Amendments considered.
    Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 22, after "but" insert: "(a)".
    10.10 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient I think to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 2, in page 5, line 24, leave out "(a)", and 3, in page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—
    "and
    (b) if leave to appeal under this section is by virtue of the rules required in a case where the adjudicator has dismissed an appeal under the said section 2(1)(a) the authority having power under the rules to grant leave shall grant it if satisfied that the person who was the appellant before the adjudicator held an entry certificate at the time of the refusal which was the subject of the appeal."
    Mr. Rees: We are sorry that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) is unwell. We were expecting him to be dealing with this matter.
    The first two Amendments are paving Amendments for No. 3. The purpose of that one is to ensure that a holder of an entry certificate is not necessarily entitled to appeal to the Tribunal without leave when there is a dispute over the validity of the entry certificate. In its present form, the Clause provides that the holder is entitled to appeal without leave. But there could be a dispute as to whether the Commonwealth citizen concerned was, in fact, the holder of an entry certificate. The immigration service might allege that the certificate on which he relied was no longer valid, had been issued to someone else or was a forgery.
    In such a dispute, it would be uncertain whether or not the Commonwealth citizen needed to obtain leave to appeal. If he did not apply to the adjudicator for leave, it would also be uncertain whether he could be removed from the country under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 before his
    1788
    case came before the Tribunal.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to address the House against a background of many debates.
    Mr. Rees: To avoid this uncertainty, the Amendments alter Clause 7(2) so that the Commonwealth citizen who claims to hold an entry certificate may, nevertheless, be required to obtain leave to appeal but the adjudicator or Tribunal will be bound to grant leave if satisfied that he holds an entry certificate.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 9

    SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CASES INVOLVING NATIONAL SECURITY
    Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: We are to discuss at the same time, I understand, Lords Amendments No. 5, in page 7, line 6, after "under" insert "subsection (1) of", and No. 6, in page 7, line 6, at end insert:
    "( ) If—

    (a) in the case of an appeal which is dealt with in accordance with directions given under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State certifies that the disclosure to the appellant of any matters relevant to the case would be contrary to the interests of national security; or

    (b) in the case of any appeal under this Part of this Act in which it is alleged that a passport, entry certificate or employment voucher (or any part thereof or entry therein) on which a party relies is a forgery, the adjudicator or Tribunal hearing the appeal determines that the disclosure to that party of any matters relating to the method of detection would be contrary to the public interest,

    those matters shall be presented to the adjudicator or Tribunal without being disclosed as aforesaid; and for the purposes of this subsection any part of the proceedings may take place in the absence of the appellant or that party, as the case may be, and of his representatives."
    Mr. Rees: The first two Amendments pave the way for the third, which is the one of substance. The first deletes the

    1789
    existing subsection (2) of Clause 9, the second makes a consequential change in the wording of the present subsection (3), which will become subsection (2). The third Amendment adds a new subsection (3) which deals with the circumstances in which the appellate authorities may receive evidence in the absence of the appellant and his representatives.
    As to security cases, which are dealt with under subsection (1) by a special panel of members of the Tribunal, and which we have discussed at length on earlier stages, paragraph (a) of the new subsection has the same effect as the present subsection (2). If the Secretary of State certifies that the disclosure to the appellant of any evidence would be contrary to the interests of national security, that evidence must be presented in the absence of the appellant and his representatives. But the new subsection (3) goes beyond the existing subsection (2) in that paragraph (b) deals with cases in which it is alleged that a passport, entry certificate or employment voucher has been falsified.
    In such a case, it is proposed that, if the appellate authority decide that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose to the party relying on the document in question the method by which the alleged forgery was detected, evidence of this method has to be given in the absence of the appellant and his representatives.
    Hon. Members may ask why it should be in the public interest to conceal from the appellant the method by which it is alleged that a forgery had been detected, which may be an essential element against him. The simple reason is that the provision of forged documents for would-be immigrants is a highly organised trade in some Commonwealth countries, and the immigration service's success in combating the forgers' efforts depends on the forgers being kept in ignorance of defects in their productions.
    If all this information had to be specified in the presence of appellants, the information would be likely to be passed back to the organisers of the trade, and it would not be long before the forgers improved their methods. It would not be sufficient to exclude the Press and public from the hearing, since the appellant might be an agent of the immigration racketeers.
    1790
    In some instances the detection of a false document or of a forged entry in a genuine document is based on the absence of certain safeguards or recognition signals that have deliberately been incorporated into the design of the authentic version. If the nature of these safeguards had to be disclosed, they would be valueless. There are various ways which the immigration service has of detecting forgeries.
    The Amendment was suggested to us by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), on Second Reading, when he dealt with this matter. At that stage, I undertook to consider the issue. There is some reluctance on our part in putting forward this proposal, for the obvious reason that not to provide access to the hearing of evidence in this way, especially to the lawyers, may give rise to certain objections. But we see no other way of dealing with the matter. It is the only way of preventing the appeals system from being turned to the advantage of the racketeers.
    Mr. W. F. Deedes: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said and I assure him that we see the need for this change. Indeed, we welcome it.
    Those of us who have seen the work at the ports know what the right hon. Gentleman said about the methods which must be employed against forgeries which, in the end, redound greatly against the interests of the immigrants. We appreciate that these methods must be employed and it would be ludicrous if the methods which immigration officers must use to detect forgeries were spelt out in every appeal which is heard at the ports.
    I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's reluctance to go as far as this proposal goes in excluding the appellant from what is, in effect, his own appeal. I agree that there is no way round this problem. If anybody was present at such a hearing who was in a position to repeat what he heard, the methods used by immigration officers to detect forgeries would no longer be of use to them and would not do what they are designed to do, namely, to act as a safeguard against future forgeries.

    1791
    We therefore accept the proposal and we shall note with interest how, in the long term, it works out in practice.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  New Clause A

    POWER TO REFUSE ADMISSION TO WIVES AND CHILDREN UNDER 16 IF THEY DO NOT HOLD ENTRY CERTIFICATES
    Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 13, line 16, at end insert new Clause "A"—

    "A.—(1) In subsection (2)(b) of section 2 of the Act of 1962 (under which a woman may not be refused admission into the United Kingdom if she satisfies an immigration officer as to the matters there specified) after the words 'satisfies an immigration officer' there shall be inserted the words 'that she holds a current entry certificate granted for the purposes of this paragraph and'.

    (2) In subsection (2A) of the said section 2 (under which a person under the age of 16 may not be refused admission into the United Kingdom if he satisfies an immigration officer as to the matters there specified) after the words 'satisfies an immigration officer' there shall be inserted the words 'that he holds a current entry certificate granted for the purposes of this subsection and'.

    (3) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for securing that the persons having authority to grant entry certificates on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom shall, on due application, grant such a certificate for the purposes of the said subsection (2)(b) or (2A) on being satisfied that, apart from the foregoing provisions of this section, the applicant would be entitled to admission into the United Kingdom under the said subsection (2)(b) or (2A) or would be so entitled if the applicant's husband, parent or parents were admitted with the applicant."

    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Government have decided to make the possession of an entry certificate obligatory for settlement by Commonwealth dependants. I will come to the question of aliens later. Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, lays it down that admission may not be refused to the wife of a Commonwealth citizen who is already resident in the United Kingdom, or who accompanies her and is on that occasion admitted, unless she is the subject of a deportation order; nor may admission be refused to
    1792
    children under 16 whose parents are here or who are admitted with them.
    The effect of the Amendment will be that these rights of entry will remain exercisable provided that the passenger has obtained an entry certificate for the purpose from the appropriate British representative overseas; but that admission may be refused if he has not. The change is, in substance, important though purely administrative. I wish to make it clear that it is not the intention of the Amendment—nor could it be by virtue of the rights involved—to lead to a reduction in the number of dependants coming in.
    This is a method of improving the machinery of entrance for dependants. It is important that all people coming to Britain should obtain entry certificates. The point that has moved my right hon. Friend concerns the problems that arise principally at London Airport of dependants of Commonwealth citizens who travel perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 miles across the world and come here without good documentation.
    Subsection (3) is designed to ensure that everybody entitled to a certificate receives one, and I shall return to this issue later. Entry certificates will also be obligatory for dependent relatives who have no statutory right of admission for example, children over 16 or aged parents.
    A separate Amendment to Clause 22(5) provides for the new Clause to come into operation as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent, which we expect to be tomorrow. Although this Amendment does not restrict the right of entry, already this week London Airport has had a larger number of people arriving without proper documentation and this has stretched the immigration service to the limit. This is, however, only a minor reason for the timing of the measure. There are a number of other reasons; for example, the cases in recent weeks, which have been unfortunate, of people arriving, again without proper documentation.
    It has seemed to my right hon. Friend that when the Bill becomes law and is implemented—we hope that this will be by the end of this year or early next year—there may be certain administrative difficulties—"swamping" is too strong a word—unless something of this sort is done. We also thought that perhaps the

    1793
    Select Committee might have considered this matter. However, in its wisdom, it did not; and we therefore felt that this was the time to deal with the matter.
    We accept that the Wilson Committee, while giving a great deal of support to the need for entry certificates, and the need to deal with them voluntarily, did not recommend that this should be done, but experience since that Committee sat of the large number of people coming in without entry certificates has convinced us that something ought to be done.
    We have failed to persuade sufficient of those coming for settlement to obtain entry certificates. From the West Indies, there is no problem, nor is there from West Africa and Cyprus. But the great majority of dependants from India and Pakistan make no use of the entry certificate procedure. There is no doubt that people with entry certificates almost walk through our immigration control points, because the documentation has already been attended to.
    During 1968, more than 48,000 Commonwealth citizens were admitted as dependants coming for settlement; over 30,000 from India and Pakistan. The majority come to London Airport, and it is here that difficult problems have arisen. The least suitable place for investigation regarding documentation, or questioning simple people coming from almost another world, is a great international airport, with all its bustle.
    This problem would not be solved by the introduction of the appeals system provided for in Part I of the Bill, but the Government intend that there shall be an extra-statutory appeals system for such dependants before Part I is implemented, and that this part of the system will be introduced immediately in advance of the Measure itself.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says that this provision will come in immediately on the Bill getting the Royal Assent, which he hopes will be tomorrow. He also said that the very announcement of this new Clause had brought in a flood of additional people during the last few days. What happens to those people who arrive tomorrow and the day after who do not have an entry certificate? My question is not asked critically.
    Mr. Rees: All I can assure the hon. Gentleman is that it is to be implemented tomorrow, but that because of the overlapping period it is not my right hon. Friend's intention to be dogmatic. We shall have to take into account those who started their movement in advance of this part of the Bill coming into force.
    It is not at present considered necessary to increase the number of offices in India and Pakistan from which entry certificates may be obtained. Incidentally, the entry certificate takes the form of a stamp in the passport. There are four places in India and four in Pakistan where certificates may be obtained.
    It may be suggested that the Government should open more entry certificate offices overseas nearer to some of the main areas of emigration, but paragraph 72 of the Wilson Report expressed the view that the offices were conveniently located. We think that the first priority must be to reinforce the eight existing offices in India and Pakistan, and that is where the additional staff will initially be located. Subsequently, it will be for the High Commissioner to decide how best to allocate the resources at his disposal. We have seen, and shall see, that the High Commissioners are made aware of the various suggestions that are being made.
    It is certainly not the case that we have decided at this stage not to make facilities available in additional places for the issue of entry certificates, but there are practical difficulties. It is not just a question of sending a few people up country, or wherever it may be. We must keep an open mind on the subject, and continue to look at it. I am advised that most applicants at present seem to be quite content to go to the main centres to apply for passports, and they can apply for entry certificates at the same time. The offices are encouraging applicants to make the first approach by post.
    It is not to be expected that Commonwealth Governments will positively welcome a Measure which for certain of their citizens changes the entry certificate from an optional facility, but the Government firmly believe that it is in the best interests of Commonwealth immigrants of all nationalities, and they trust that the provision will be seen in this light.

    1795
    I shall say a few words about arrangements for appeal, because I understand that this is an aspect which is exercising the minds of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. When the statutory appeals system is in force, a Commonwealth citizen who is refused an entry certificate will be able to appeal to an adjudicator in this country and, with leave, to the tribunal; and one who arrives with an entry certificate but is refused admission will be able to appeal to an adjudicator and, as of right, to the tribunal.
    10.30 p.m.
    As I have explained, it is not practicable to bring Part I into force immediately. I have said that we shall, however, have an extra-statutory appeals system at once. The appeals will be decided by one of a number of independent lawyers to be nominated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor, and my right hon. Friend undertakes to abide by the lawyer's decision. Appeals against refusal to grant an entry certificate will be dealt with in this country in accordance with the procedure recommended by the Wilson Committee and in conformity with the extra-statutory arrangements already made for dealing with such appeals for United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa.
    If the appellant so requests, his sponsor in this country or a lawyer or voluntary organisation acting on his behalf will be able to present the case orally to the lawyer dealing with the appeal. The interim arrangements, as have said, will be based on the Wilson Committee's recommendations in paragraphs 125 and 187.
    Upon deciding to refuse an entry certificate, which is the point which is exercising some people's minds, the entry certificate officer will hand the applicant, or send him by post, a notice stating briefly the reasons for the decision and informing him of the arrangements for appeal. The information supplied about rights of appeal will explain that an appellant can, if he wishes, be represented at the hearing of his appeal by a relative or friend in this country or by a voluntary organisation here. I will say something about that in a moment.
    All applicants for entry certificates as dependants will, unless the application is
    1796
    completely baseless, have sponsoring relatives in the United Kingdom. Unsuccessful applicants will be informed of the facilities for advice and assistance available from voluntary organisations, both in their own countries and for the purpose of appeal in the United Kingdom. An appellant will be able to indicate on the notice of appeal whether he wishes to nominate anyone to represent him in this country.
    On receiving a notice of appeal the entry certificate officer will transmit it with a report on the case, accompanied by any relevant documentary evidence, to the Home Office, where the case will be assigned to one of the lawyers whom the Lord Chancellor will nominate to deal with the appeals. Any person or organisation whom the appellant has named to represent him will be sent copies of the entry certificate officer's report and informed of the date and place of the hearing. The decision will be transmitted to the appellant through the Home Office and the entry certificate officer and will also be made known to his representatives.
    We have been discussing with a number of voluntary bodies the part they can play in the representation of appellants under these arrangements, both in the long term—the Ports Welfare Advisory Committee, based on the Clarke Report—and in the short run. The basis of discussion is the Clarke Report. There still is a job to do. There will be less, as a result of this Amendment, to do in this country. Now we are concerned with work in the country of origin. Appeals will be in this country. We will spread the lawyers near to the centres of immigration, not just in the London area.
    We want to help the organisations, principally the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and International Social Service, to help in the country of origin. We have invited them to let us have more details of their plans, with an estimate of costs. This estimate we have now received, and we shall consider, in consultation with the Treasury, what measure of financial assistance we can provide so as to ensure that immigrants are fully aware of and able to exercise their rights under the new procedure.

    1797
    We do not under-estimate the practical difficulties of introducing this kind of appeal system, but we should not, in considering how to overcome them, lose sight of the painful aspects of the system of immigration control that it is to replace.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend has been talking about the Ports Welfare Advisory Committee. Is it the position, since the meeting at the Home Office last week, that this proposal is still to be implemented, or is there a breakdown in negotiations between the committees and organisations which were to sponsor the Committee?
    Mr. Rees: There has been no breakdown. There are two aspects. In the long term, there is the Port Welfare and Advisory Committee, based on the Clarke recommendations. The N.C.C.L. has withdrawn its support from this, but the other organisations have not. In the long run we want to set up a ports advisory and welfare service, but it is not to be implemented until the end of this year or the beginning of next.
    The immediate need is through the J.C.W.I. and I.S.S. to deal with the problem that will arise straight away. This is exercising the mind of my right hon. Friend. We want to be as helpful as we can, because it is necessary that we do something in the country of origin.
    Mr. John Lee: I realise that my hon. Friend wants to be as informal as possible, but which are the voluntary organisations that will have locus standi in this matter?
    Mr. Rees: I have here a list of all the organisations that played their part in the Clarke Report. Perhaps I could let my hon. Friend know later.
    As a result of what happened last week, the two bodies that will principally play a part in the country of origin will be the Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants and International Social Services. They are only two of the bodies interested in the more long-term Ports Advisory and Welfare Service. There is also the Kent Council of Social Service and others. I will see that my hon. Friend receives a copy of the Clarke Working Party's Report with its recommendations.
    1798
    An entry certificate holder appealing against refusal of admission will be able to attend the hearing of his appeal and not be removed from the United Kingdom until the appeal has been withdrawn or dismissed. A corresponding change in the law will not be required for alien dependants, because, unlike Commonwealth dependants, they have no legal rights of entry. There is an essential difference. Two changes in administrative practice will be made to bring the admission of alien dependants into line with what is now proposed for Commonwealth dependants, so far as this is consistent with agreements for visa abolition.
    Admission of alien dependants for settlement is on a much more modest scale than admission of Commonwealth dependants, and is limited to wives, children and other relatives of aliens who have themselves already been accepted as residents here, normally as a result of having spent at least four years in approved employment. In such circumstances dependants are admitted for settlement if the head of the family is able and willing to support and accommodate his dependants without recourse to public funds.
    On this basis, about 1,350 are admitted for settlement each year, of whom about 1,000 are wives and children. The balance are dependent parents or other relatives. Dependants of aliens who are visa nationals are required to obtain visas before coming here for settlement, so this is already in line with what is proposed for Commonwealth citizens.
    Resident aliens who are nationals of countries with which we have entered into arrangements for visa abolition often obtain Home Office approval before bringing their dependants here. In future, they will be advised to obtain this advance approval. Where it is not obtained the dependants will not be admitted for settlement. If they appear ineligible for settlement the immigration officer will not allow them to land. But if they appear eligible they may be allowed to enter for a short period and advised to apply to the Home Office for permission to settle.
    Under the Bill, arrangements for appeal in this country have already been approved for people who have been refused entry certificates. This is already the procedure we have agreed to. Now

    1799
    we are asking that all dependants should obtain entry certificates. My right hon. Friend regards this change as extremely important. It has become clear to us in recent months that something like this would have to be done. I do not think that it is something that divides the House politically. There is no fundamental difference between us. What we all wish to see is that this new change is implemented in the best possible way and that those who have a proper legal right of entry will be able to obtain this in the country of origin.
    That is an administrative improvement and I am sure that at London Airport, where I have been particularly moved by this problem, we shall have a far more civilised method of entry, especially for Commonwealth citizens.
    Miss Joan Lestor: The issuing of entry certificates and the appeals machinery in the country of origin is obviously crucial if this system is to be seen to be fair. Has my hon. Friend any plans if this goes on for having an inspectorate, or officials, or hon. Members, members of the Select Committee, go to see how the system is actually working in the countries of origin?
    Mr. Rees: At the official level this is something which we will look at extremely closely in the next few months, because it is crucial to the working of the Bill.
    It is not for me in any way to suggest what members of the Select Committee might do, but if they were to put their minds to this problem, it might seem appropriate for them to look at the difference between the arrangements in the West Indies, and, for example, in Pakistan and India, and also in Cyprus and Malta. The problem is dealt with differently in each. No problem has arisen in the West Indies, for example. It may be appropriate for the Select Committee to look at this, but it is not for me to do aught but put the suggestion on record.
    Mr. Deedes: It may seem gracious of those of us who have pressed for this system of entry certificates to acknowledge what the hon. Member has said and to welcome this course of action and
    1800
    not be captious about it. I want to be not captious, but cautious.
    Personally, I have no criticism of the way in which this is being done, although it has been subject to criticism elsewhere. This is a big item to inject into a relatively modest Bill at this stage, but I accept the hon. Member's hint that there were compelling reasons for acting swifty, as we learned early in 1968, and perhaps this is the best way of going about it.
    As I surmised, and as the hon. Member confirmed, this is not a sudden change of attitude by the Government, but, as the hon. Member put it, something which has grown on them in recent months as being the sort of thing that would have to be done. The policy having been determined some months ago, the opportunity to act quickly has come.
    I am not quarrelling with that approach, but questioning whether the rush which, I know, the hon. Member had in mind unless this were done in a certain way would, in fact, have materialised. I do not dwell on that, but I question whether, in those circumstances, the rush would have materialised to the extent feared.
    Nor, if this system works properly, do I think it humbug to stress that the entry certificate system is emphatically not restrictive but calculated to be far more humane than the methods which some of us have seen working at the ports. Certainly, my own findings from a view of the ports early this year were that the strain on the immigrants and on the immigration officers had become intolerable under the present system. This was inevitably reflected in the indignities on the individuals whose credentials were doubtful and had to be examined.
    To effect a shift in the burden of proof from the ports, which are the worst possible places for protracted examination, it had become essential to shift the administration to the country of origin. I imagine that the additional burden that the appeals system will impose on the immigration staff had made some relief of this kind necessary. Nevertheless, as hon. Members opposite have stressed at times when they have wished to resist pressure for the entry certificate system, it will undoubtedly impose certain burdens

    1801
    on our administration overseas. When he made the announcement, the Home Secretary said that he was satisfied that the staff would be adequate.
    The hon. Member has just referred to the number of offices which he things it will or will not be necessary to open. Can he give us any quantities? What additional staff will be required? There will obviously be a considerable demand on the High Commission staff already dealing with this sort of thing. This is not just an administrative quibble. The entry certificate has come to be regarded, rightly, as an additional safeguard, proof of the bona fides of the person entering, and on the evidence of the ports, where many fewer of those without entry certificates have been refused entry than those with, that is a right supposition, but it will continue to be so regarded. Scrutiny, therefore, will be less severe and inquiries at the ports less protracted. That is the object of this. In other words, the entry certificate will be heavily relied upon.
    10.45 p.m.
    It is imperative that it remains reliable. That depends in part on the preliminary work in the countries of origin, particularly in countries or districts where details are hard to get, and a great deal of time may be occupied in doing that. Second, it will require a good deal more care in the department of which we spoke earlier, the department of forgery. It is no good blinking the fact that forgeries which have been unnecessary in the past in this sphere of the entry certificate will now become a factor. The entry certificate will join the passport and the port of embarkation stamp as a profitable forgery.
    I am not imagining this. I will quote words which the Under-Secretary himself used in November, when stating the case against the entry certificates:
    "If bogus pieces of paper are being used to enter, there will be bogus entry certificates. If entry certificates cannot be checked at the ports because holders of such certificates would be allowed in, the number of bogus people entering would perhaps be greater."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 527.]
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not depart from that view which he held only a short time ago. But a moment ago, he said that those holding entry Certificates would, in effect, almost be
    1802
    able to walk through. That is what we all expect. I trust that this matter of the right degree of scrutiny at the ports will receive careful attention. It would be wrong to neglect it.
    What will be the scrutiny of the entry certificate or visa form in the passport? I take it that there will be safeguards against forgery of the entry certificate, and at both ends. Obviously, I am not pressing for details of this, contrary to the spirit of an earlier Amendment, but I hope that we shall not spare pains to prevent the entry certificate becoming an area of forgery.
    The main injustice which will be done—if it is done—will be to the immigrants who are unjustly kept out while illicit immigrants get in. How long will applicants have to wait after putting in for an entry certificate? I realise that this may vary greatly according to the district where application is made, but what would be the longest period?
    Finally, appeals. I have said that this is a very tenuous system. The refusal will lie with the officer of the High Commission in the country of origin, and the appeal will be by an adjudicator somewhere in this country, and between the two, a good deal of paper will have to pass. We have all had the experience of receiving letters from Australia rather more quickly than those posted internally in this country, so I do not rule out the possibility that this could be done, administratively, expeditiously and without undue delays.
    Again, I stress that it will depend very much on staffing, at each end. It is not difficult to see how long delays could be involved. An exhausting bureaucratic system could be established in which nothing happened very quickly and in which the appeals system became a farce. That causes me to lay additional stress on the question of staffing. I hope that the Minister will say another word when he replies.
    Generally, therefore, with those reservations I welcome this step. We acknowledge the difficulty that the Home Secretary has had concerning the timing of it and I for one, therefore, resist using the word "belated", but we dwell on the administrative obligations to which this will give rise.

    1803
    If the Treasury is cheeseparing about this and the Home Office or the Foreign Office do not get the staff which they should have, our gains from all this will be very small. That will be the result. It is not too difficult to imagine that if this is skimped, we shall simply have added to the complexities of our system without reducing the injustices which this approach is designed to meet.
    Mr. Brian Walden: I, unlike the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), have serious reservations about what the Government are doing. However, I understand the problem which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman have set out. I know that there have been great strains upon our immigration officers at the ports, and especially at the airports.
    I fully accept that the Government have changed their minds and are making this change only because they think that this will be a more just, humane and watertight system. I do not want to make a lengthy address setting out all the arguments that my right hon. and hon. Friends have heard many times before. Perhaps we can make the deal that they can take them as read. They know the sort of objections that people like myself have to the system.
    I should like to make one comment and ask two questions. My comment is, in a way, similar to that of the right hon. Member for Ashford. I am worried, despite what my hon. Friend has said, about the number of places and the staff manning those places who are available on the Indian sub-continent for the issue of the entry certificates. I have real doubts about that.
    It was well said by the right hon. Member for Ashford that we do not want the worst of all situations in which we add to the bureaucratic complexity without in any sense getting rid of the injustices or the hardships. Therefore, I am not sure that we have enough places. Constituents tell me stories about obtaining entry certificates or failing to obtain them. I do not by any means say that those stories are necessarily true in every detail, but the sub-continent is a big place. I am not sure that eight places at which certificates can be ob-
    1804
    tained are enough and I am not sure that there is adequate staff for what will need to be done.
    I reiterate the plea made by the right hon. Member for Ashford that we should not stint money on this. I add, parenthetically, that we are learning that immigration control, as many of us suspected, is exceedingly expensive and gets more and more expensive the more just and strict it is in enforcement.
    Now, my questions. I understand—I am open to correction—that the lack of an entry certificate does not automatically mean that an immigrant will not get in. [Interruption.] This is what I want my hon. Friend to say. I understood that the lack of a certificate meant that an immigrant almost certainly would not get in, but that there is discretion. The way my hon. Friend spoke led me to think that there was discretion. This point has been put to me several times; I had assumed what is plainly the common view of the House. I am told there might be discretion and, if there is, I want to know what it is.
    My second question relates to a point that is constantly put to me and I think I know the answer, but I would like to have it on the record. What discussions have taken place with the airlines? It would be wrong to suggest that the airlines should carry out administrative functions which properly rest with British Government representatives, but have there been discussions, and how far has it been possible to arrive at an arrangement? If it has not been possible to arrive at an arrangement, what are the reasons for this?
    By limiting my remarks in this way, I am sure the reply from my right hon. Friend will not be less charitable on that account.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in welcoming the new Clause. The system of entry certificates is a sensible procedure. There is nothing more degrading and distressing than that people may come to this country in the belief that they are able to enter only to be turned away at the port of entry or at the airport. As has been said by the hon. Gentleman, a system of entry certificates is basically humane, rather than the reverse. The

    1805
    system will facilitate the means of entry for those who are entitled to come here.
    There are, however, one or two things that perturb me in the immediate position. The hon. Gentleman stated that the new Clause will come into effect with the Royal Assent, which he expects to be given tomorrow. I do not have the 1962 Act before me, but, according to the wording of the Clause, from that moment onwards, it will be necessary for anyone who is to enter this country as a dependant to satisfy the immigration officer—
    "that she holds a current entry certificate granted for the purposes of this paragraph …"
    I am not being critical, but merely asking for information. This appears to be a mandatory requirement, without discretion. If this is so, what will happen to the flood of people on their way here, who were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, when the Bill is given the Royal Assent? This applies not only to the people who arrive tomorrow or the day after, but to those who are on their way by sea, believing that they are entitled to enter, and to those who have committed themselves to coming here within the next week or two, none of whom will have an entry certificate.
    Will they be stopped? If so, since the entry certificate is to be granted in the country of origin, will they have to return to their country of origin to get the entry certificate? I am not being critical, but just mentioning the difficulties of immediate application.
    My second point concerns appeals. There is something slightly naive in the idea that the entry certificate is to be obtained in the country of origin whereas the appeal is to a lawyer in this country, who is presumably to be announced by the time Royal Assent is given tomorrow, if the appeals system is to be put into immediate force.
    Appreciating what the hon. Member said about the post—that it is quicker to get a letter from India than from Swiss Cottage—it is even more naive to tell that to a person who would have the right to appear in person before an appellate tribunal——
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The appeal applies to people who have their entry certificates refused before they get to this country;
    1806
    in other words, it applies to the position under the Bill as originally drafted.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Carlisle: I apologise; it was an unfair point. I was trying to follow what the hon. Member was saying. It would be strange to give a person the right to appeal and to provide that he would have to come to this country to be heard and would then have to return.
    My other general point is that it seems that this provision has almost been brought about by a sudden emergency. We have heard of the need for urgent implementation of this provision. What is the reason for the urgency? Is it that there has been an increased flood of people with doubtful applications in the last few weeks or, as I suspect, that a greatly increased number of dependants has been coming in recently? I am not saying that this is wrong, but it should be borne in mind that once this provision is introduced it is a means by which we can phase the entry of dependants into this country.
    When I talk about the urgency I merely ask—in view of the statements made and the criticisms of hon. Members opposite, not least the Front Bench opposite whenever we have talked about the phased entry of dependants—where is the difference? Are not the Government in fact introducing a system which will entitle them to phase the entry of dependants by the granting of entry certificates?
    I am not saying that I criticise such an idea; I merely ask—when I hear that the need for this provision is urgent—whether the urgency arises from the greatly increased number of dependants coming here.
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I have a very big constituency interest in this matter. I have a large concentration of Indian people in my constituency and am constantly involved in questions concerning the anxiety and anguish that attends divided families. Nothing in what we have heard today suggests to me that this provision has anything to do with a deliberate attempt by the Home Secretary to prevent those who are legally entitled to come to join the breadwinners of their families from doing so.
    I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations. The idea

    1807
    that children, in particular, should be kept out of this country if they are dependent upon a breadwinner here, is repugnant. In my view, the sooner they are sent here to take advantage of our educational system and to train for a position in our society, the better.
    Nevertheless, I must voice a few anxieties. I want to probe the matter from the point of view of technicalities. I do not know what an entry certificate looks like, or what it means in practical terms if appended to a passport—whether it is simply a rubber stamp on the passport. I join with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in expressing a sense of anxiety—since it adds a new dimension to the regulations concerning people arriving here, especially from India and the two States of Pakistan—that this provision should be exercised with scrupulous care.
    It will be an additional piece of paper or information which will be crucial. I want to know, in practical terms, what it means for a wife or a child who hitherto could come in without such a certificate. I want too, to press the discretionary aspect of what we are writing into the law. I thought that I detected some measure of discretion on the part of the Home Secretary in the use of the word "may" somewhere along the line. It seems elementary that the Home Secretary should have this small amount of discretion. I support the general idea, having been involved in this.
    It should be made clear to the public why it is necessary to take this step, that it is both in the interests of the indigenous population, and the incoming immigrants. Over a wide area of the world there is no proof of the date of birth. There have been struggles going on, at London Heathrow particularly, seeking to prove at one end of the family scale that the lad is not as old as he appears. As I have said, the man lands up in hospital, having his bones X-rayed. At the other end of the scale, there is the dependent relative over 65, and it is sometimes necessary to prove that he is older than he appears to be to the immigration officer.
    This is a degrading, inhuman activity. Then, because we have not provided better accommodation, these people land up somewhere like Brixton Prison, while the tug-of-war goes on and, the M.P.
    1808
    having put his nose into it, prolongs the agony. In the end, if no proof is available, these people have to be shipped back, half-way across the world. I accept the necessity for some far better arrangement, but I express this great anxiety about the total social consequences of the family being kept apart.
    Mr. John Pardoe: Unlike most hon. Gentlemen who have spoken so far, I totally oppose the new Clause, unequivocally, and on grounds of principle. I find it extraordinary that this extreme point of principle should be introduced for discussion at this late hour, on a Thursday, when a large number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have already left the House to go to their constituencies. There is a major point of principle at stake, and this is not the time to discuss it. Why has it been introduced so late in the Bill? I want to dwell on this because I have a feeling that there has been a strange undercurrent in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), as if they somehow knew something, but were not prepared to say.
    Lord Stonham, in another place, introducing this new Clause, said that to make the change first known at a late stage in the Bill reduced to the minimum the risk of a rush to enter in advance of the alteration in the law. I want to know whether we have been fooled and whether the Government have intentionally delayed this until after the earlier stages in this House for the reasons spelled out in another place, and whether the Government were entirely straight with the House in the reasons that they gave.
    Why have the Government changed their mind at all? It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to tell us that certain cases in the past few weeks have made it necessary to act in this way, or that persuasion has exercised itself on his mind. In November, 1968, he said quite clearly to the House that for administrative reasons it could not be done.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. I remember the occasion very well. My right hon. Friend meant, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will perceive, that it needed an Act of

    1809
    Parliament because one was altering statutory rights. It was to that aspect that my right hon. Friend was then referring.
    Mr. Pardoe: I do not read the passage like that, but I accept that it is one interpretation that could be put on those words.
    But the Home Secretary produced another reason for saying that it could not be done. He said that it would discriminate against the Commonwealth citizen, and nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said tonight indicates to me that anything has changed in that respect. Under the existing legislation, dependents of Commonwealth citizens who are already resident here or have the right to enter have a right of entry, but under the Bill that right will now depend on their having a certificate of entry issued in the country from which they come.
    I come to the vitally important point that the word used tonight is precisely the same as that used by the noble Lord. The word used was "may". What does that mean? The noble Lord said that "admission may be refused" if the immigrant does not have a certificate of entry. What does the word "may" mean there? Does it mean that the immigration officers will be allowed to exercise discretion, or that in very special cases they will not be allowed to exercise discretion? Or what does it mean? It is right that we should ask for a very clear definition, because the wording will have a great effect on a very large number of individual cases.
    Nor can I see the Government's reason for changing the whole recommendation of the Wilson Committee on this point. That Committee looked into this matter very carefully—far more carefully than most of us in this House have had an opportunity of doing. In paragraph 68 it spelt out the appalling situation which arises at ports of entry and airports. The Committee was well aware of these conditions, and stated:
    "… the entry certificate was introduced for the convenience of Commonwealth citizens; and it has obvious advantages for those who use it. When such a certificate is granted, the Commonwealth citizen who has properly obtained it has normally a virtual guarantee of admission. When it is refused, the Commonwealth citizen not only saves the cost of his fare but is relieved of the strain of waiting in a kind of no man's land for his fate to be
    1810
    decided at the port. From the point of view of the Home Office, too, it is desirable to reduce as far as possible the number of difficult cases which first arise for decision at the port of entry."
    The Committee was well aware of all the difficulties that arise by allowing immigrants to come here and then refusing them entry. In spite of that awareness, the Committee nevertheless turned down the entry certificate as being "out of the question"—its own words. Further in the Report, the Committee states:
    "After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to make the use of entry certificates compulsory."
    I will not read out the reasons given, but I again emphasise that the Committee came to the conclusion that this step, which the Government have introduced here, and in another place slightly earlier, was out of the question.
    11.15 p.m.
    Shall we not be transferring the human misery that now occurs at our ports of entry to the areas surrounding British High Commission premises in the sub-Continent of India? It has been pointed out that, together, India and Pakistan form a large area. Those concerned will have to make their way to one of eight points of certificate issue. Their journey may not, for them, be as far as London Airport, but for many of them the journey to one of the issuing points may be just as difficult. Considering the conditions in that part of the world, some of these people would no doubt prefer to make a journey by sea than cross overland to one of these issuing points.
    Mr. Rees: I have been studying the maps and the Wilson Report, including those parts of it from which the hon. Gentleman did not quote. Is he aware that the parts of India and Pakistan from which most immigrants come necessitate a journey overland, in any event, just as a journey overland would be required to travel to one of the High Commissioner's offices? Would he give an example, on the evidence in the Wilson Report, of the sort of journey he has in mind?
    Mr. Pardoe: I am putting that question to the hon. Gentleman. Can he say what distances, on average, these people will have to travel to get to one of the

    1811
    eight issuing points? How long will that journey take them?
    The Amendment makes a complete change in the principle of the Bill. It is one thing to hear the appeals of people who are here and can attend the hearings, but it is another to hear the appeals of people who have been refused entry and are in far-away countries. Conducting appeals in this fashion, on paper, does not seem to square with anything that I could call the British sense of justice. I would not like any appeal of mine to be heard in that way.
    This proposal will remove the appeals procedure from the gaze of the public eye in Britain. How will hon. Members and the voluntary organisations which are interested in these matters be able to act? Many of these organisations perform a valuable task in surveying the process by which entry certificates are granted or refused. These voluntary watchdogs will find it difficult and vastly more expensive to safeguard overseas the principles of justice which we have so far maintained here.
    Without wishing to criticise the people who will carry out this task on our behalf in other countries, the process here is different. There is a degree of tolerance in Britain; it is perhaps not universal, but many people here maintain the tradition of bloody-mindedness when a principle of liberty is involved. That tradition is exercised towards people when they come here, but I fear that it will not be so exercised in other countries. The would-be immigrant will be tried in his absence and justice will not be seen to be done.
    To set my mind at rest, will the Minister answer some important questions? Will our High Commissions be able to cope with the administrative problems involved in the great number of applications that will be made to them? The number is bound to be larger than at present, since the hon. Gentleman said that only one in five of would-be immigrants now apply in their countries of origin. Although cost is not a matter of principle, how much will this proposal cost? Will aliens also have to go through this process? He said, for instance, that it was not the same because they had no right of residence anyway, but I am not sure exactly what rights of
    1812
    residence Commonwealth citizens have after recent legislation.
    Mr. Rees: The Commonwealth citizen, when he comes here, comes in as a Commonwealth citizen. He goes on the voters' list; he cannot be removed. He does not have to report to the police. He is in a very privileged position compared with aliens. The alien coming into this country is not a citizen until he has applied to be naturalised. When there is a great deal of talk about equating the position of aliens with that of Commonwealth citizens, it all depends on which way the equation takes place. In this sense, Commonwealth citizens are privileged in comparison with aliens.
    Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that further explanation, but I am not quite sure how that has changed since the time when his right hon. Friend said in November that it was one of his main objections to taking this step.
    There is, too, a great need for a far better advisory service overseas. What do we know about the reasons why people in Pakistan and India do not get their certificates on a voluntary basis, whereas those in the West Indies do? Presumably it is at least partly because the advisory system in the West Indies is infinitely better. What have we done to improve the advisory service in Pakistan and India? What research have we carried out to find out why these people come here without voluntary certificates? As far as I can see, this advisory system will still be needed because even when this Bill has been passed there is still going to be the problem of ensuring that the certificate is a real one. The right hon. Member for Ashford raised the whole problem of forgeries. It is a very considerable problem, and I can foresee a vast scale of forgery going on—certainly in the early stages. If it becomes too widespread, the certificate will cease to mean anything and precisely the same operation will have to be gone through at the port of entry to scrutinise whether the certificate is a real certificate, just as we now scrutinise whether the dependant is a real dependant.
    This is a bad Clause, and if it is passed it will make this a very bad Bill. The Government have to explain to us in some detail why they have, as I believe,

    1813
    made fools of us by bringing it forward so late in the day.
    The Government's record on immigration will, I think, be the thing of which members of the Parliamentary Labour Party will be most ashamed when they sojourn in the wilderness. Tonight will be a black day in their memories. No retreat is too rapid, no attitude too supine, for the Government before the prejudices which have swept this country in recent months. This House will, I suppose, pass this new Clause tonight, but I believe that it will disgrace itself in so doing.
    Mr. Evan Luard: I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that this is an extremely important Amendment for two reasons. The first is that to a large extent it nullifies, for a large proportion of the immigrants with whom we are concerned, the provisions in the Bill as it originally stood.
    But the Amendment is important for another reason. It reverses the recommendations of the Committee which the Government themselves set up to look into these very problems.
    The Bill as a whole implemented these recommendations, and my right hon. Friend announced more than six months ago that it was his intention to implement the recommendations as a whole. In introducing this Clause he has reversed that decision, and decided to go against a major recommendation of the Committee.
    I do not go along with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, however, in condemning that decision out of hand. I agree with a lot of what has been said by other speakers about the terrible miseries that are created at London Airport, at the ports and elsewhere by the system as it works at present, which needed to be ended. But I do think that to be able to justify this very radical change in the Bill and in the principles which had previously been adopted by the Government, it is essential to show that they have provided adequate arrangements in the country of origin for two purposes. The first is to examine the applications for entry certificates and ensure that the examination is fair and seen to be fair. The second is to make
    1814
    sure that there is an adequate system of appeal which is easily accessible to the immigrants and again is not only fair but seen to be fair.
    I do not make the criticisms made by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite about the small number of offices in the countries of origin or the distances that persons may have to travel. When people are taking the very great step of removing their domicile to a distant country, they are probably prepared to travel a long way to make the necessary arrangements.
    But the difficulty arises with the kind of inquiry that has to be made in a case of this kind. We have all dealt with many cases or read about them in the newspapers. The inquiries are mainly about the exact age of a person or about establishing the identity of a person. Both things may require not one visit but several visits and certainly very detailed inquiries from the control post with the applicant and probably members of his family and others of his acquaintance. I have not heard descriptions of the kind of arrangements that will be made to satisfy me that it will not be very much more difficult for the immigrants to establish their identity or age and to acquire their entry certificates than at present.
    Ideally no more immigrants should be able to come under this arrangement nor any less than at present, but I suspect that a number less will be able to come because of the difficulties created for them.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am interested, and I know of my hon. Friend's practical knowledge of this. Could he elaborate a point? At the moment only a small proportion of immigrants from Pakistan come with entry certificates, but others apply for them and go through the procedure, a large number with little bother, with no appeal system. Why should it be more difficult to convince the entry certificate officer in Rawalpindi, say, who will, in most cases, be a seconded immigration officer, than if he were doing the same job at London Airport?
    Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend raises a point that I was going to make. The immigration officer at London Airport has an extremely difficult task. But one point

    1815
    in his mind is that if he refuses a certificate he has to compel the immigrant to travel all the way back to the country of origin, with all the hardship and expense that may be involved. In these circumstances he is more prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the person than will be the officer in the country of origin.
    It may be said that some people get in who should not, but I doubt whether this is so. I suspect that the present may be a more humane system than the proposed one. I think that many of the officers in the countries of origin may require a much more conclusive standard of proof than is required now. I can visualise cases in which it is found extremely difficult for the families and dependants to establish their identity or age to the satisfaction of the immigration officers.
    These arguments apply even more strongly to the question of appeals. My hon. Friend must agree that at first sight it is an extraordinary system of appeals that is established under which the dependant who wishes to try to get a decision of this kind reversed is unable in normal circumstances himself to appear and present his case in person. It will be extremely difficult for him to instruct lawyers in an adequate manner. We are dealing with people who are often of a not very high standard of education. The appeal is conducted at a distance of 5,000 to 6,000 miles from where they are situated. It will be difficult in those circumstances for them to conduct their appeal in a way which satisfies them that they have been given a fair deal and that justice has been done to them.
    11.30 p.m.
    I and most hon. Members accept the principle of going over to the system of entry certificates if the Government can convince us that they have provided for the applicant, in the first place, a thoroughly fair system of presenting his application, and having it heard fairly, and, second, a thoroughly fair system of hearing his appeal. But I am not at all convinced that the kind of system set out in the Clause will provide such a fair arrangement either on application or on appeal. Above all, it must be proved to be a system which will convince people in the countries of origin that they have a fair deal. What must concern us in
    1816
    the House is whether we are providing a system as fair as that which we are replacing and as that which the Government intended to introduce by the Bill as they first presented it. I am a little doubtful on the point and I shall be grateful if in his reply my hon. Friend will clarify some of the issues which I have set out.
    Mr. John Hunt: I welcome and support the entry certificate system, which, on the whole, is a sensible and humane arrangement, but I am concerned about the interim period between now and when the new system is fully under way.
    In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), the Minister told us that the entry certificate procedure need not necessarily apply to those who are in the pipeline—that is, on their way here. But I understand—and perhaps he will confirm it—that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which will be much concerned with this scheme, has been given an assurance that there will be one month's grace for the new system to come into operation. It feels that even that month will not be sufficient for it to establish the kind of appeal machinery which it wants to encourage in the Indian sub-continent.
    I therefore ask the hon. Member to comment specifically on that point and to tell us, if he can, whether he feels able to be a little flexible in the matter. We know the difficulties and I appreciate the dangers of a flood to which he referred, but it is important to establish good will in the matter, and I therefore hope that it will be possible for him to be rather more flexible than he indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend's intervention.
    I echo the doubts which have been expressed about the adequacy of the four centres in India and four in Pakistan. I have not studied the map, but I am assured that in many cases it means that intending entrants to this country will have to travel between 200 and 1,000 miles. That is a very long distance. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will keep an open mind on this issue and that if, after the system has been in operation, he receives representations, he will see his way clear to establish more centres in order to facilitate dealing with applications which are made. I hope that in his

    1817
    reply the Minister will give some reassurance on those points.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This is not the time of night to discuss a subject as important as this and I will keep my remarks as short as possible.
    I neither support nor oppose this suggestion. In the words of Mr. Asquith, I am prepared to wait and see. In theory there is much to be said for this system. In theory it should not mean any reduction in the number of dependants who come to this country. It should simply be a more humane and efficient way of determining their right of entry. Therefore, there is something to be said for it. I have no doubt that between them the Front Benches will adequately put the advantages of the proposed system and the disadvantages of the present system.
    I want to dwell on the disadvantages of the proposed system. I am left with some reservations. An appeals system where the decision has to be made at the port of entry has the virtue of immediacy of treatment. The moment the decision is reported to the applicant, he can go to the tribunal through the adjudicator, and the matter can be dealt with swiftly. Swiftness is an essential part of justice.
    An additional important element is that he presents his case orally. I have occasionally had to look at some of the appeals brought under the National Insurance Regulations by constituents of mine to the National Insurance Commissioner in London. Such appeals are dealt with entirely on paper. There is often such a great difference between the Commissioner's finding of fact and the facts as I see them when I interview the appellant that I am struck by the great difference between an oral hearing and a written application. Such a system when it is transferred thousands of miles to a different continent, and when it takes place between people who are basically illiterate and a highly sophisticated lawyer in London, is likely to lead to a diminution of the effectiveness of the system which it is proposed to introduce. An argument for an appeals system on the style proposed by the Wilson Committee loses its attractiveness when decisions are to be announced in countries of origin and the appeal is to be made in writing.
    1818
    The aspect that worries me most—this is a fear which I voiced in an inadequate way when the Home Secretary made his announcement—is the rôle of the Advisory Committee. The important rôle of this body was featured in the Report of the Clarke Committee and foreshadowed in the Report of the Wilson Committee. The whole idea of the Advisory Committee has been foreshadowed by the valuable work of voluntary agencies such as the Joint Council, I.S.S., and the N.C.C.L. All these bodies have in a comparatively short time developed a considerable amount of experience in dealing with these difficult cases in distressing circumstances. There was a hope that if there was to be an appeals procedure set into the system, these people with their experience would be able to take the maximum advantage of it on behalf of immigrants.
    The rôle of the Advisory Committee is very limited. I heard what my hon. Friend said about the intention of two of the main organisations to continue their support. I notice that the N.C.C.L. has withdrawn, for reasons which I can appreciate. What is required is a much more effective advisory committee in the countries of origin than seems possible on the funds which are likely to be made available. High Commissions should desirably provide staff to advise those who have been refused entry certificates, but this is an expensive undertaking. It seems that we have the worst of all possible worlds in the advice which may be tendered to the intending immigrant. It is true that he will be in his country of origin and against his own domestic background and able to talk to local friends or his local headman or even, if that is his situation, to a lawyer, in his own language, and there are advantages in that.
    But there are grave disadvantages in his not having an amicus curiae who actually knows the procedure and intimately knows the personalities and so on. Many of these things which are an exercise in discretion are dependent upon an intimate knowledge of the procedure and of the personalities involved, and my fear is that too many refusals will be given when the applicant will not know how to appeal, or to whom to appeal.

    1819
    It is true that he will have his relative in this country who may be able to initiate proceedings from here, and that is why I say that I am prepared to wait and see, because the upshot of this experiment should be that ultimately there will be no reduction in the number of immigrants.
    But how we are to tell that I do not know. The number of dependants coming to this country fell last year by 20 per cent. If it falls by 20 per cent., or even more, in the coming year, I do not know how we shall be able to tell whether that is caused by the natural decline in the number of dependants who might be likely to come or by this system. The only way in which we shall ever know is by making a detailed investigation on the spot, and therefore I support any suggestion which may be made for an investigation by an independent source.
    The Select Committee would be highly desirable for this and I hope that it will take it upon itself in the coming Session to see how the system is working. If the upshot is, as my hon. Friend claims, that there is no reduction in the number, but that decisions are made more effectively and humanely, I shall do nothing but support this proposal.
    The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) suggested that this might be the prelude to a phasing operation for the entry of dependants. I am sure that he was making that suggestion with the intention of causing some concern on this side of the House. If I thought that there was any truth in that suggestion, there would certainly be some expression of concern on this side of the House. Again, we will wait and see. If it happens, the Government will be in for a very rough time.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Goodhart: I approve of this Amendment, but I join whole heartedly with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) in deploring the hour at which it has been introduced. I also join with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in deploring the stage of the Bill at which it has been introduced.
    However, I agree with the Under-Secretary that an international airport is the least desirable place for checking the
    1820
    credentials of a potential immigrant. The system which we have operated for the last seven years has caused the maximum hardship to intending settlers. It has also been the system most designed to stir up political and racial antagonisms.
    Every person rejected becomes a cause célèbre in his country of origin, or the community to which he hoped to go. After seven years of operating the system we are still left without adequate accommodation for those whose credentials we wish to check further. While it may be insane to wish to come and live in this country, I see no reason why it should be treated as a criminal offence and why those who wish to enter and whose credentials have to be checked should be sent to prison.
    Therefore, on humane grounds, I support the introduction of the entry certificate system. The present system has the advantage of immediacy. One of the best ways of stopping people entering a country when they are not wanted is just not to deal with their application. This has happened to me in recent years. On occasions I have wished to visit North Vietnam and have written to President Ho Chi Minh asking for permission to enter his country. I have never received any reply and have been unable to visit the country. He has not turned me down, he has just not replied.
    This can well apply now. Last year, 48,000 dependants came here. When we pass this new Clause, as I assume we will, without further reference to Parliament it would be possible for a Home Secretary to reduce that flow to 4,800 or even 408. The Under-Secretary has said that there is no intention of using the new Clause to reduce the flow of dependants. It is a political platitude these days to say that Home Secretaries can change. The other day, while opening a reception centre for women ex-convicts, the Home Secretary said that Home Secretaries do not go on for ever. No doubt the present Home Secretary will not go on forever. He might be replaced by someone who wished to dramatically reduce the number of dependants entering the country.
    Then, without reference to the House, he need only reduce the number of people at the High Commission offices dealing with entry certificate applications.

    1821
    He could say that the office would be open from twelve to one each day but would be staffed by one man who, alas, suffered from some tropical illness which meant that he would be absent for six months of the year. With no further reference to Parliament, purely by administrative means, the flow of dependants from India and Pakistan could be reduced to 100 a year, or even nil, merely by holding up their applications forever.
    This is a profound change in our legal system, and is not one that we should be dealing with at this stage of a Bill and this late hour. Why has this happened? I do not believe that the Home Office introduced it in this way because it wished to cheat in a Parliamentary fashion. I think that it introduced it because it has realised that the warning I gave on Second Reading was right. I said that the result of setting up an appeal system would be that whereas immigration officers at London Airport had previously leant over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to those who arrived, because they realised the hardship that would otherwise be involved, they would now lean over backwards the other way and say, "We have some doubt. Let it go forward through the appeal machinery." So, instead of 1,200 people being turned back, as happened last year, there might well be 10,000 or 12,000 cases going to appeal each year under the system envisaged. I think that the Home Office realised this fairly late and realised that administratively it could not cope. Therefore, it finally introduced this vastly important Amendment, which changes the whole nature of the Bill.
    I acquit the Home Office of trying to cheat, but this has happened before. We have had Bills introduced by the Government which have changed their nature greatly by Amendments suddenly introduced at a very late stage. It just crosses my mind that hon. Members opposite might wonder whether this could happen with any Bill dealing with industrial disputes that might be introduced in the weeks ahead.
    Miss Lestor: In the early hours of the morning, not too long ago, we debated a Measure that I opposed on the question of Asian immigrants from Kenya. I opposed it because I felt that it was a concession to racialism, and I still hold that view.
    1822
    Tonight, also at a very late hour, we are debating immigration again, but I do not believe that this Measure is a concession to racialism. I do not believe that it is a concession to some of the pressures that I know are continually put on the Home Office to do something about the number of people illegally entering the country. If I did, I would not have given it the qualified support I give it.
    I share the anxieties that have been rightly voiced tonight on the question of adequate machinery being set up in the countries from which dependants of Commonwealth citizens come. It is clear that had the recommendations of the Wilson Committee been implemented in the way suggested some of the misery at London Airport would have been avoided.
    Some of the Bill is not as vital or fundamental as it was before the Amendment was introduced. That must be clear, since the method of appeal and the need for appeal will be somewhat different. But I accept the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the intentions behind it are humane, and that it is not an attempt to try to reduce numbers.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that we shall watch what takes place afterwards with great interest. This was why I welcomed the obvious enthusiasm of the Under Secretary on the suggestion that there should be a means of overseeing how this works out in the months ahead.
    The number of dependants has been referred to by one or two hon. Members opposite, as well as by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The question of 48,000 dependants who have been coming into this country must be related to the fact that 50 per cent. of them, according to the Home Office, belong to Commonwealth immigrants who came here before 1964. Therefore, the number of dependants in relation to the number of work vouchers issued is falling and is bound to fall. I understand that for every work voucher that is issued, roughly four dependants are now allowed into this country.

    1823
    I have not time to go into the question of aliens, but it is crucial to this matter. My hon. Friend spoke about the differences between aliens and Commonwealth citizens. It is true that Commonwealth citizens have the right to bring in their dependants and that aliens may bring in theirs. In practice, aliens bring in their dependants with very little difficulty. The differences between the two in that respect may be one of right and one of discretion but, nevertheless, in practice they work out precisely the same. It would be quite unfair if this Measure were seen to put Commonwealth citizens in relation to their dependants at a great disadvantage.
    What is to happen particularly in the countries from which dependants come? I underline that it is on this aspect that those of us who have this matter in our constituencies will, naturally, be very interested to see how it works out, because in trying to set up adequate machinery in a country where travelling arrangements are exceedingly difficult, where illiteracy exists and where an illiterate can be charged as much as £40 for having a letter written by a scribe, the question of how to set up adequate machinery both for the obtaining of cerficates and appealing against their non-issue is of crucial importance. If we find that there is a reduction in the number of dependants coming into this country, clearly the system will not have worked.
    I do not think that the misery at London Airport, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred, has ever been given enough attention by many hon. Members. Some of us have been aware of it for a long time. It is something of which many of us have been ashamed when we have seen it.
    Some people have come into this country who may not have had a right to come in; they may not have been dependants within the meaning of the Act. It is also true—and all of us who have had anything to do with this know it to be true—that many people have been sent back to their country of origin when they were dependants of the people of whom they claimed to be dependants. Their documentation was not in order, it was not possible to establish their relationship and, therefore, they were sent
    1824
    back when they had the right to come in.
    If that can be dealt with in the country of origin before the dependants come here, the Amendment will be a humane measure and will contribute something to removing what has been a stigma at London Airport and other places where, for example, a young Pakistani girl was nine weeks in prison while one tried to establish whether she was the dependant of the person whose dependant she claimed to be.
    These situations have made myself and others come to the conclusion that whilst we operate our system of immigration, we must find the most humane method of ensuring that dependants do not suffer the indignities and misery that many have suffered at London Airport and other places of entry.
    We will watch progress with interest. I am sure that this is not a concession to racialism. It is an attempt to deal with the problem in a humane fashion. If this involves public expenditure, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported the new Clause will not criticise the Government for spending more money in an endeavour to be fair and humane than they would have spent on the implementation of the Wilson recommendations, or than is now being spent.
    12 m.
    Mr. John Page: The longer this debate continues the more I realise how wrong it is that this matter should be dealt with so late at night and so late during the progress of the Bill.
    The Amendment turns the Bill into the "Immigration Non-Appeals Bill." The entry certificate system is likely to be more humane and fairer than the present system, and in this I totally disagree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard). It would be much better for a United Kingdom citizen wishing to take up, for instance, permanent settlement in Turkey to be able to discuss his documentation and entry certificate in this country and arrive in Turkey with the documentation in his hand.
    Only in the matter of appeals does the system appear to be inadequate. To make the Amendment a real part of the Bill there must be a genuine appeals system built into the programme in the overseas territory. There needs to be a

    1825
    proper system of appeal to independent lawyers, possibly independent British lawyers attached to the High Commission.
    Administration of the system abroad may involve a danger of forgery and an even greater danger of the transference of entry certificates. The Home Office will have to work out how to overcome the danger of an entry certificate issued to one person being presented at the port or airport of departure by another person.
    I would draw the attention of the Home Office to the personal export scheme—the Under-Secretary is looking surprised, but this is not a trivial suggestion—whereby the documentation for an article purchased in this country is married up with the article at the port of departure. There is an opportunity here for counterfoils of the documents to be married up at the port of departure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is listening to me; he is one of my constituents, and I particularly wish to keep in touch with him. Documents could be married up with a counterfoil at the point of departure.
    The Under-Secretary did not mention the cost of this scheme. It has been said that the cost of the appeal system set out in the Bill would be about £500,000. The cost of appeals in this country under the new entry certificate scheme is likely to be lower than expected. There will probably be fewer appeals here if screening is done in the country of origin. I suggest that we might find ourselves with 48,000 new permanent settlers. If each entry certificate were charged for, in the same way as visas are often charged for abroad—at, say, £5 for each individual—we could arrange to gather, in the countries abroad, about £240,000 to go towards the cost of setting up a really good, fair, and watertight system, including a system of appeals, which is a possibility that we should consider.
    There is no reason why the British taxpayer should have to pay £250,000 to overseas countries for the cost of setting up this new system. We have not had an estimate, and that is as good a one as I can get. I seriously ask the Home Office to consider making a charge for entry certificates as a way of defraying the cost of this new system to the British taxpayer.
    Mr. William Wilson: Because of the large Indian and Pakistani communities in Coventry the Amendment raises a real constituency problem for me. It must have occurred to other hon. Members who have such large communities within their electorates that there was a better way of dealing with the situation than the existing one. It was because of that that when I went to India last year I made it my duty to make inquiries on the spot about the situation there and the possibility of improving the system so that the distress and upset so often caused when individuals came to this country could be eliminated.
    As a result of the inquiries that I made on the spot I have come to the conclusion that making this sort of entry certificate available in the country of origin is a far better way of dealing with the situation than the one that we are operating now; so much so that ever since I came back from India I have told all those Indians and Pakistanis who have asked me what was the best thing for their relatives to do if they wanted to come here to join my constituents, "Tell them to go to the point of origin—the High Commissioner's office—and get an entry certificate before they come." I am satisfied that this is the better way.
    The present system undoubtedly plays into the hands of the unscrupulous airlines and travel agents. The Amendment will go a long way towards providing a solution to this difficult problem.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) has given his constituents good advice in telling them to tell their relatives to obtain their entry certificates before embarking on their journey here and spending a great deal of money on their air fare, but there is a great difference between doing this voluntarily—as the hon. Member recommends to his constituents—and making it compulsory, as the Home Secretary intends. I cannot understand why there is so little realisation among hon. Members that we are concerned with matters of principle and not questions of detail.
    I thought that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) came nearest to the truth when he pointed out that administrative action by future Home

    1827
    Secretaries could drastically alter the position of dependants in Commonwealth countries without any change in the legislation, especially if we have somebody who is less liberal than the present Home Secretary—if I may put it that way—by merely reducing the number of persons who deal with the applications of Pakistanis or Indians, or by arranging it so that they are present only at certain hours of the day which are inconvenient to applicants, with the result that many people have to wait in the queue, with none being dealt with from one year to the next.
    This is the kind of consideration which hon. Members should have had in their minds. Unfortunately, it came here so late that we have had practically no opportunity to obtain advice either from the organisations which defend the interests of the immigrants and their families or from the Commonwealth countries principally concerned.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, South said that he visited India last year. Since the Clause was tabled, has he been able to obtain the advice of the High Commissioner in India? Has the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—I was surprised to hear that she was perfectly happy with this situation—been able to consult the immigrant organisations in her constituency?
    I have had some discussions only with the National Council for Civil Liberties, with which I am closely concerned. It is wholly dissatisfied with this Clause and has expressed its objections in the strongest possible terms in the memorandum which it has sent to hon. Members. In particular, it says that the Clause came so late that public discussion on the issue has been effectively stifled. We, in this House and in another place, have been prevented from raising objections in time to influence the final draft of the Bill. This is a fundamental point of principle. As the hon. Member for Beckenham said, how often will legislation be altered in its nature in the last stages, when we have practically no time to take into consideration the important issues involved?
    I know that the Under-Secretary is humane and liberal. I have had a great deal of discussion with him about the difficult problems which we face with
    1828
    dependants arriving at London Airport and other points of entry without valid documentation. I recently drew to his attention the tragic case of a young boy from Kashmir who arrived at the airport in February. The story was that his mother had died in Kashmir and he was coming to join his father and stepmother who were living in Birmingham. The immigration officer said that he did not believe the evidence produced by the boy, who was aged 11, that the mother had died. There were two affidavits from people who said that they had attended her funeral and a certificate signed by the equivalent of the chairman of the council in the boy's village, and a sworn statement which the father had made before a commissioner for oaths in Birmingham—which, unfortunately, he subsequently altered.
    But the point is that the customs and background of people seeking to enter this country are not the same as those of our own people and one cannot apply the same standards. I was convinced, after looking through the documentation in this case, that the facts were as set out, even though the papers which had been produced in support of the statement could be called wholly unsatisfactory by British standards. This young boy spent from February until the middle of last week in detention at London Airport.
    I agree with the Under-Secretary, whose opinion I know it to be, that this was tragic and wholly unnecessary, but I wonder whether, in introducing a new Clause designed to deal with cases of this kind, we have not overlooked the fact that the Bill itself is not yet in operation. There is no such thing as an appeals machinery which could have enabled this kind of case to be dealt with far more expeditiously than by taking it through the High Court, and by applications to an hon. Member and the Home Secretary and his Department, with last minute delays of 24 hours while the Under-Secretary could reconsider it. Suppose that we had had this appeals machinery, which is the purpose of the Bill. Would these tragic cases not have been avoided? I hope that we have not anticipated matters by taking panic action at this late stage which might have proved unnecessary had we waited to gain experience of the operation of the Bill.

    1829
    12.15 a.m.
    I have so far dealt with matters of principle. Although some important matters of detail have been raised, I will not delay the House by reiterating them. Am I right in assuming that the people who will be considering applications in the countries of origin will be on the staff of the immigration service?
    Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated assent.
    Mr. Lubbock: Assuming that the proposed machinery will be set up—I must assume that since the hon. Member for Beckenham said that the Amendment would not be taken to a vote; I suppose that at this late hour few hon. Members would be available to vote against the proposal, although I would be delighted to do so—may we be assured that those who will vet the applications in India and Pakistan will have knowledge of the customs and habits of the people of those countries?
    It would be wrong to send out an immigration officer who has done a three-month stint at London Airport, or an officer whose experience is confined to dealing with immigrants here, and expect such a person to deal with sympathy and understanding with cases arising in remote parts of the Indian sub-continent. I am not criticising the immigration service as a whole. While, overall, it does a good job, in individual cases I have had to pass some strictures on their conduct.
    If we are to establish a remote service which will not be under the scrutiny of, for example, the National Council for Civil Liberties, we must ensure that those who will be acting on our behalf have knowledge and experience of the countries in which they are operating.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: When moving the Amendment I dealt with most of the points that have been raised subsequently. If, in replying to the discussion, I overlook matters of substance, I will write to the hon. Members concerned explaining the position.
    I assure the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that the Bill as a whole is not a modest Measure. The appeals procedure represents a fundamental change in the treatment of immigrants, and that is still the position. The
    1830
    change which we propose was not determined a long time ago. Indeed, it was finally decided only on the day when my right hon. Friend announced it to the House.
    The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised a number of interesting points, and I assure him that no panic is involved. The whole matter was considered for months, and only on the day that the decision was announced was the issue finally decided. After all, there is nothing to panic about. In terms of the numbers of immigrants coming here, we have constantly been pointing out that the figures are falling.
    I do not know why the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) should be sneering. In the last six months I have spoken with his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington about this subject on many occasions, which is more than I can say for him. This has been a question of dealing in a humane way with a situation that could be dealt with only by legislation.
    Mr. Lubbock: When I used the word "panic" I was referring not to the number of immigrants but to cases involving young children being detained for long periods at London Airport, cases which might have been avoided if the Bill had been in operation.
    Mr. Rees: Those cases certainly influenced us in this matter.
    Several hon. Members referred to the issuing of entry certificates. There will be no question of an extremely long examination. I should point out to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that it will not be a certificate as such but a stamp in one's passport.
    Reinforcement of staff is confined to India and Pakistan. The primary grade will be entry certificate officer. We shall send ten extra and that will double the number. With ancillary staff it will cost £50,000 but that will save what would otherwise have been spent in this country.
    I have to tell the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that my right hon. Friend has discretion which will be used in the short run but afterwards only in the most unusual cases. I point out to him again that there is not a vast increase in the numbers coming in.

    1831
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) mentioned the question of transport costs and we shall be dealing with the subject of carriers later. We should otherwise have had much greater expense, because we were getting to the point of a small Ellis Island in the neighbourhood of London Airport.
    I advise the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, who has come to the subject again—
    Mr. Pardoe: What exactly does the hon. Gentleman mean by my coming to the subject again? Does it mean that hon. Members can speak only on a subject on which they have spoken before? Can he not contain himself and his temper a little?
    Mr. Rees: All those hon. Gentlemen who spoke had read the Wilson Report and knew what they were talking about. The hon. Gentleman did not come into that category. If he wants some reading, let him read paragraphs 75 to 81, and especially paragraph 72 of the Report, and all his questions will be answered.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) made the profound point that some immigrants would not get through as a result of examination at overseas posts. But the entry certificate officers will know that those whom they turn down will appeal to lawyers here, and that will concentrate their minds to some degree if they are tending to slip up. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) spoke on the same point.
    I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for her support because I know that she, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), has a great deal of expertise in the matter.
    The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) spoke of Hanoi. The great difference is that if he could have written to the Member for Hanoi he might have got something done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that most people write to my right hon. Friend and to me, and a great deal can be done in that respect, and will continue to be done. To draw a comparison with North Vietnam in this respect, if in no other, is the wrong thing to do this evening. What we are
    1832
    doing is right, and I commend the Amendment to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

  New Clause B

    LIABILITY OF OWNERS OR AGENTS OF SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF PERSONS DIRECTED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM.
    Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 13, line 16—

    "B.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where directions are given under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1962 for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft in which he arrived shall be liable to pay to the Secretary of State, on demand, any expenses incurred by the latter in respect of the custody, accommodation or maintenance of that person at any time after his arrival while he was detained or liable to be detained under paragraph 4(1) of that Schedule.

    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to expenses in respect of a person who, when he arrived in the United Kingdom, held a current entry certificate or was the person described in a current employment voucher; and for the purposes of this subsection a document purporting to be such a certificate or voucher shall be treated as genuine unless its falsity is reasonably apparent.

    (3) If a person is admitted into the United Kingdom before the directions for his removal have been carried out, or he is so admitted thereafter in consequence of the determination in his favour of an appeal under Part I of this Act (being an appeal against a refusal of admission by virtue of which the directions were given or against the directions themselves), no sum shall be demanded under subsection (1) of this section for expenses incurred in respect of that person and any such sum already demanded and paid shall be refunded.

    (4) In subsection (1) of this section 'directions' does not include directions which by virtue of Schedule 2 to this Act have ceased to have effect or are for the time being of no effect; and the expenses to which that subsection applies include expenses in conveying the person in question to and from the place where he is detained or accommodated unless the journey is made for the purpose of attending an appeal by him under Part I of this Act.

    (5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council under section 1 of the Aliens Restriction Act 1914 make provision in relation to aliens for purposes corresponding to the purposes of this section."

    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

    1833
    Subsection (1) authorises the Home Office, when a Commonwealth citizen has been refused admission and directions have been given for his removal, to recover from the carrying company the expenses incurred on his custody, accommodation and maintenance during the period after his arrival when he was detained or liable to be detained pending examination or removal.
    Subsections (2) and (3) contain respectively an exception for cases in which the passenger held an entry certificate or employment voucher, and for cases in which the passenger is eventually admitted. In either case the expense of custody, accommodation and maintenance will be borne by public funds.
    Subsection (4) prevents the making of a demand under subsection (1) in a case where directions for removal are in suspense pending an appeal, and provides that the cost of transporting the passenger to and from the place where he is staying for any purpose other than his attending an appeal hearing are to be recoverable under that subsection. The cost of transporting appellants to and from appeal hearings is to be met by the Home Office.
    Subsection (5) enables corresponding provision in relation to aliens to be made by Order in Council under the Alien Restriction Acts. An Order will be made for this purpose immediately after the Bill becomes law.
    The present law on the responsibility of a shipping company is in an unsatisfactory state. There have been discussions with the shipping and airline companies, and it would be idle for me to pretend that they agree with what is involved in the Clause.
    My right hon. Friend considers it right to maintain the general principle that the carrying company is responsible both for removing a passenger to whom entry is refused and for his custody and maintenance until removal is effected.
    This principle has been recognised in this country for nearly 70 years. It has undoubtedly given the carriers who bring immigrants on long-haul routes an incentive to avoid carrying passengers who are likely to be rejected.
    The fact that virtually all passengers from the West Indies who are subject to immigration control arrive with entry
    1834
    certificates is due in large measure to the attitude of the carrying companies. By safeguarding their own financial interest, these carriers are at the same time acting in the interests of their passengers, whose eligibility for admission is settled in advance, and they are also facilitating the operation of immigration control.
    There are, however, concessions that we have made. The carrying companies will incur no financial responsibility if the passenger holds an employment voucher or entry certificate, or is eventually admitted to this country whether as a result of an appeal or otherwise. We believe this is the right thing to do, and I commend the Clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 22

    SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT
    Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—
    "'employment voucher' means a voucher of the kind described in section 2(3)(a) of the Act of 1962;".
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment supplies a definition of the term "employment voucher" which was used in the Government Amendment to Clause 9.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 14, line 30, after "(5)" insert
    "Sections (Power to refuse admission to wives and children under 16 if they do not hold entry certificates) and (Liability of owners or agents of ships and aircraft for expenses incurred in respect of persons directed to be removed from the United Kingdom) shall come into operation on the passing of this Act and the other provisions of".
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Clause 22(5) in its present form empowers the Secretary of State to make orders fixing dates on which the various sections of the Bill are to come into operation. The effect of the Amendment

    1835
    is that the new Clause mentioned in it will come into operation as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, without any commencement order having to be made by the Secretary of State. We have already explained this evening the reason for bringing the new Clause in at once.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  HOUSING, NOTTING HILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]
  12.28 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: Notting Hill in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is a crisis area in which the long history of bad housing is taking its toll. The brunt of the overcrowding problem is borne by families of no greater than average size. In fact, this experience is general throughout the country.
  The Interim Housing Survey, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, states in paragraph 147 on page 77
  ". that about 75 per cent. of all statutory overcrowding is accounted for by households with three children or less."
  So we are dealing not with families where there is an excessive number of children but with those in average circumstances.
  North Kensington, or Notting Hill as it is widely known, has been a crisis area since the 1840s. The OFFICIAL REPORT in 1849 recorded
  "The majority of the houses are of the most wretched class, many being mere hovels in a ruinous condition, and are generally densely populated."
  In 1856 a Ministry of Health Report referred to
  "One of the most deplorable spots, not only in Kensington, but in the whole Metropolis."
  Finally, the census report of 1969 reads:
  "Single room lettings in multi-occupied dwellings between 1951 and 1961 more than doubled in North Kensington."
  In addition to the appalling housing circumstances, there is a notable absence of social provision. In fact, from a visit there any one can see clearly that squalor prevails generally.
  1836
  The area which is now the Golborne Ward, in which the worst overcrowding occurs, was built to provide accommodation for the working class in the 1860s. Added to the physical deterioration of the properties, it has been a focal point and "reception area" in which the underprivileged have congregated. This has happened over a very long period. Conditions there are not the result of recent immigration, which cannot be pleaded in mitigation.
  The Notting Hill Summer Project 1967, the Interim Report, which has given rise to this debate, is founded upon the devoted work of a large number of people, some of whom give their whole time to community activity in Notting Hill. This project grew out of the Community Work Shop founded by George Clark in 1965 and formed part of the Notting Hill Social Council. This had been founded earlier in 1960 to keep together all the social agencies in the area and flourishes today under the leadership of the Rev. David Mason. Miss Illys Booker was actively involved in community development work until her death last January at the early age of 41. The Council also sponsored the Notting Hill Adventure Playground, in which Mr. Pat Smythe plays a leading role. It is interesting to visit it and see the facilities developed there.
  The more recently formed Notting Hill Housing Service set up as the result of the Summer Project and the survey which has been produced aims to provide an advisory service to tenants in the area with a view to ensuring that they have information about their statutory rights and that it is available to all residents of the area. The chairman of this service is Mr. Donald Chesworth and the director is George Clark.
  This Interim Report "Notting Hill Summer Project" is the result of a survey conducted in August, 1967, a highly organised operation which included 150 interviewers, necessary for organising a detailed scrutiny of the coverage and accuracy of the questionnaires.
  The cost of carrying out and organising the interviewing was about £3,000, all of which was raised by public appeal, much of it being contributed by the volunteers themselves. The Summer Project as a whole cost about £4,000. The data processing was conducted by the social research unit at Sussex University, financed

  1837
  out of grants made by the Nuffield Foundation and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The interviewers were all volunteers, the majority being undergraduates from some 18 universities.
  The Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has the highest density of population in London, 72·3 persons per acre, and is the smallest London borough in terms of land area. Notting Hill, which comprises North Kensington, has no fewer than 134 persons to the acre. Paragraph 30 on page 13 of the report states:
  "Nearly three quarters of all household spaces are privately rented … the sharpest contrast of all between the Kensington and Chelsea tenure pattern and circumstances elsewhere is the large percentage of furnished accommodation, nearly 35 per cent. against the national average of 2 per cent. and an average of 4 per cent. for Greater London as a whole."
  This highlights the particular circumstances to which I wish to draw attention.
  This, as will be well known, is the area of multi-occupation and exploitation where Rachman ran his disastrous course. In a report to the Royal Borough Council, the planning committee on 10th December last, referring to the Golborne and Colville areas, said that they:
  "have become a reservoir of cheap privately rented accommodation, the houses are divided inadequately into furnished rooms, furnished and unfurnished flats without additional sanitary and other amenities."
  In Golborne, children make up nearly one-third of the population and as such are the major sufferers from the inadequate housing and other services. It is deprivation in terms not only of living accommodation, education and health but of a quality of life which is a reflection on our society.
  The Government's recently announced urban programme—and I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the reply which he gave me to Questions on these subjects—was designed to give emergency assistance to areas of grave need. In a Parliamentary Question on 30th January, 1969, the Home Office announced—as reported in columns 365 and 366 of HANSARD—that under the first phase of the urban programme the project approved for Kensington was a children's home provided at a figure of £53,000. This is a highly desirable scheme, but it is one of the smallest allo-
  1838
  cations of capital sums in the list of approved capital projects, in the Greater London area.
  It is clear in the reply from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to my Written Question of 11th February, 1969, that nothing further is planned for Kensington but that consideration is being given to what projects might be included in the latter phases of the programme. This is but a crumb of comfort to those having to cope with the problems in Notting Hill.
  I will refer only briefly to the implications for race relations. These are important. In fact, 26·9 per cent. of the residents of Kensington and Chelsea were born outside the United Kingdom. In North Kensington the largest group born outside the United Kingdom are West Indians—16·1 per cent. Of this group, 63·5 per cent. live in furnished lodgings in multiple-occupied accommodation. On average they pay much more than United Kingdom-born residents by way of rent. About one-third of the West Indians pay £6 to £7 a week in rent for grossly overcrowded conditions. We read in paragraph 102 on page 51 of the Initial Housing Survey,
  "Coloured families pay more for their accommodation than do white families."
  I turn to the Government's housing policy. This comment applies not only to the policies which have been followed by the present Government but to those followed by Conservative Administrations, too.
  Despite the initiatives which both parties have taken in housing, little is being achieved in improving housing standards throughout the country and, indeed, nothing in such places as Notting Hill. On the Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill on 15th December, 1966, the Minister said:
  "The basis of our housing policy is twofold—first, to overcome the immediate and appalling need for more houses to let at reasonable rents, and, secondly, to help people to own their own homes. Our new Bill is based on that policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 666.]
  The Housing Bill, 1969, which has just completed its Committee stage, contains proposals for new and increased grants for the acquisition, improvement and conversion of older houses and the areas in which they are situated. In my view, again, this will not help places such as

  1839
  Notting Hill; it will make no contribution to the circumstances there.
  The problems are those experienced in a score or so of black spots or crisis areas throughout the country. In a recent visit to Liverpool with the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, I saw conditions in one such area—District 8—and although it is not comparable in physical terms, because of the clearance areas in London, the properties which remain in that area are over-occupied and in multiple occupation similar to those found in Notting Hill. I see that Mr. Cutler, Chairman of the Housing Committee of the G.L.C., speaking in Hammersmith Town Hall today at the annual regional conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Council is reported to have said:
  "I believe there are much worse places in London than Notting Hill."
  I mention those areas but I am sure—and I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will agree with me in this respect, particularly with his knowledge of London—that there are other areas in London in which this deplorable state of affairs exists, as, indeed, it exists in other cities, particularly those which bore the brunt of the Industrial Revolution. Surely it is time we turned the direction of subsidies in the housing field to selected areas such as these rather than distributing on a non-selective basis, encouraging local authority building where needs are nothing like as great, leaving the crisis areas such as Notting Hill comparatively untouched.
  We need a system of comprehensive renewal techniques across both the public and the private sectors and all that that term implies in clearance, rebuilding and renovation and conversion—a task, I think, beyond the capacity of the housing authorities in which these great problems exist. I listened with interest to the speech earlier today by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers), in whose constituency Notting Hill lies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a measure of this problem is beyond the capacity of the borough. This is not a reflection on the borough itself. It is really an emphasis of the degree of the problem with which it is faced.
  Where these circumstances exist in London, clearly the help of the G.L.C.
  1840
  is required, particularly to meet the requirements for re-housing which are essentially associated with urban renewal. Urban renewal on this basis calls for a much broader concept of the function of the local housing authorities.
  My plea is for a recognition of the limited number of intensely deprived areas, which I think it would not be difficult to identify, and for a concentration of resources for housing, education and social need, the initiative for which must come from the Government. The only effective policy is a concentration of resources, which I am sure would be acceptable to the country as a whole, and offer hope to those who are living out their lives in the appalling conditions clearly demonstrated in this Report.
  I am sure that the House would wish to pay tribute to those responsible for the Notting Hill Summer Project, not only those engaged on the inquiry for the Report, but the many members of the voluntary bodies in Notting Hill which are tackling the serious housing and social conditions which are found there—a continuing commitment for many of them. Those responsible for this invaluable work and the hopes they have for future inquiries and programmes cannot be maintained by voluntary effort alone, although they are, perhaps, best organised by people using the voluntary principle. It is hoped that the Government will feel that they can help the Project in its future work—the Government have helped in the past, but further assistance is required—with both money and resources so that a true partnership between these voluntary organisations and Government can be maintained and extended. A new kind of community coalition is in a formative stage, and it is hoped that the Government will give what encouragement and help they can.
  12.43 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) in the tribute he paid to the very devoted work put in by those who organised the survey. As he and I know from organising elections, there is nothing more difficult than organising voluntary workers and getting them to work effectively. It was a very remarkable piece of

  1841
  organisation that the Project was able to do that. It has produced a very valuable insight into the problems of this area, problems which people who know London, and particularly that part of West London, would not find surprising, although they find the details extremely important and absorbing.
  If I were to make any criticism of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it would be that he called for a revision of subsidies and for a new and comprehensive approach to urban problems but did not show any indication that he was aware of what the existing powers are that could be used. It is a little unfair to both the previous and the present Government to imply that nothing has been done to improve the legislation and fashion an instrument to do an effective job. The 1961 Act, of which I was a very severe critic, the 1964 Act, which was very much better, and our present Bill, which I hope will become the 1969 Act, together provide many opportunities for the detailed work both of obtaining effective management by management orders on multi-occupied property and of registering it to keep it under control, putting a limit on the numbers in a house, and preventing others taking the place of those who move out. These are important problems which a local authority should tackle.
  The problem of clearing and redeveloping an area of intense overcrowding is not insoluble. The ward in Paddington which I represented for many years, only a short distance from the ward with which we are now concerned, was as bad as any part of London. It had the highest infantile mortality rate in London. There was appalling overcrowding in the whole area. That has been redeveloped and today there is very little left of the horrible problems that existed before the war. This was done very largely by the London County Council taking the area over and using its resources to re-develop the area.
  If that were the only problem involved I do not think it would be difficult to tackle much more of Kensington than has been tackled, but there is still the difficult problem of what happens to the people. As long as there is a densely overcrowded population one must find somewhere to re-house people. That is the most difficult problem in the
  1842
  mechanics of the work, but I should have thought that local government in London could tackle it. London local government has been re-organised. London is not an area like Liverpool, which the hon. Gentleman quoted. My constituency is on Merseyside, and I know the difficulties, where there has not been a reorganisation of local government, of obtaining sites for dealing with overspill and so on. The previous Government decided that the Greater London Council was an effective unit. It has immense resources of men, and technical resources, and the quality of its staff is high. It should not be beyond it to tackle the problems of the grossly overcrowded areas in the middle of the metropolis. It has a much less difficult problem, relatively, than some other parts of the country.
  I do not want to take time in criticising the London borough, because I hope that it will be possible to persuade it to do rather more than it is doing. It has not been energetic in what it has done. In no year has it achieved its housing programme—not just what we should have liked it to do, but what it had undertaken to do. I agree that slum clearance, redevelopment and rebuilding do not solve all one's problems. Such action leaves many difficult ones, but it is something with which one must start.
  My right hon. Friend has invited the G.L.C. and the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council to talk to him frankly about their problems and the weaknesses and lacunas in the legislation. From experience over many years I have told people that the time had arrived, under whatever government, when new housing legislation would be introduced and that the time to make constructive comments was then, not after the legislation had been passed. After the 1961 Act many people came along and asked for something better, more effective. We have gone to a great deal of trouble in the current legislation to deal with area improvements, to enable bigger grants to be paid. This provides substantial financial assistance.
  The hon. Gentleman said we should concentrate particularly on the urban areas. To some extent that happens indirectly, because the fact that there is a cost yardstick which is very much

  1843
  bigger for London than the rest of the country—and we are dealing with improving the grant conditions for older houses, particularly in London—means that a larger subsidy is paid for new house construction than in the rest of the country. The Government are already able to pay very much more. What is holding up house building is not the reluctance of the Government to give approvals, or any failure of the Government to provide contributions by subsidies. London has been a priority area ever since 1964. We have said that we shall be glad to see authorities building the maximum number of houses, and that we shall back them. I hope that they will act on this.
  I do not under-estimate the difficulties. The resources available, in legislation, finance and skill are rather greater than the hon. Gentleman suggested. The important thing is to see how the most effective use can be made
  1844
  of the existing legislation for dealing with multiple occupation, rent protection, prevention of harassment and so on. My right hon. Friend is anxious to co-operate with the G.L.C. and the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the local people, who have done so much devoted work. One of the things we mention in the legislation is that an improvement area should not be something laid down from the top, either by local authorities or by other outside people, but should be discussed and prepared by interested local societies and organisations. That is the way to get a real interest in these things. I hope that out of the unhappy and tragic situation revealed by this report we shall get a new desire and strength to take advantage of the resources available to solve some of these terrible problems.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Public Meetings (Television)
  Public Meetings (Television)
  Saddleworth (B.B.C.2 reception)
  Saddleworth (B.B.C.2 reception)
  Colour Television Sets
  Colour Television Sets
POST OFFICE
  Postmen (Dogs)
  Postmen (Dogs)
  Post Office Corporation (McKinsey Recommendations)
  Post Office Corporation (McKinsey Recommendations)
  Staff
  Staff
  Unst, Shetland (First-Class Mail)
  Unst, Shetland (First-Class Mail)
  Special Stamps
  Special Stamps
  London-Londonderry (Postal Service)
  London-Londonderry (Postal Service)
  Envelopes (Sizes)
  Envelopes (Sizes)
  Commercial Communication Satellites
  Commercial Communication Satellites
  Letter Addresses (Legibility)
  Letter Addresses (Legibility)
  Mail Deliveries (London)
  Mail Deliveries (London)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  S. G. Brown Limited, Watford (Closure)
  S. G. Brown Limited, Watford (Closure)
  Unemployment (Portsmouth)
  Unemployment (Portsmouth)
  University Technicians (Dispute)
  University Technicians (Dispute)
  Firemen (Pay)
  Firemen (Pay)
  Central Training Council
  Central Training Council
  Development Areas (Unemployment)
  Development Areas (Unemployment)
  Warehouse Fire, Glasgow
  Warehouse Fire, Glasgow
  R.A.F. Station, Norton (Use)
  R.A.F. Station, Norton (Use)
  Legal Profession (Practices)
  Legal Profession (Practices)
  Commission on Industrial Relations (References)
  Commission on Industrial Relations (References)
  Prices and Incomes Policy (Public Companies)
  Prices and Incomes Policy (Public Companies)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Monkwearmouth School, Sunderland
  Monkwearmouth School, Sunderland
  School Teachers, Durham (Dispute)
  School Teachers, Durham (Dispute)
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  School Places, Daventry
  School Places, Daventry
  Bleddfa School (Closure)
  Bleddfa School (Closure)
  Secondary Reorganisation, Nuneaton
  Secondary Reorganisation, Nuneaton
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Betting Offices
  Betting Offices
  Commonwealth Immigration
  Commonwealth Immigration
  Police Records (Children)
  Police Records (Children)
  Unpaid Court Fines
  Unpaid Court Fines
  Urban Programme, Sheffield
  Urban Programme, Sheffield
  Boarded-out Children
  Boarded-out Children
  Motor Dealers, Hornsey (Court Case)
  Motor Dealers, Hornsey (Court Case)
  Race Relations (Committee)
  Race Relations (Committee)
  Poisons and Drugs (Thefts)
  Poisons and Drugs (Thefts)
  Meeting, Derby (Police Attendance)
  Meeting, Derby (Police Attendance)
  IMPORT SAVING
  IMPORT SAVING
  NORTH EAST (NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES)
  NORTH EAST (NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES)
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (DUTIES)
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (DUTIES)
  PRIME MINISTER'S VISITS TO RHODESIA AND MOSCOW (TELEVISION OPERATOR)
  PRIME MINISTER'S VISITS TO RHODESIA AND MOSCOW (TELEVISION OPERATOR)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (QUESTIONS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (QUESTIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Northern Pennines Development Board (Boundary)
  Northern Pennines Development Board (Boundary)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Gerald Brooke
  Mr. Gerald Brooke
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Market Transactions
  Market Transactions
  Selective Employment Tax (Direct Labour Employees)
  Selective Employment Tax (Direct Labour Employees)
  Quit Rents (Northern Ireland)
  Quit Rents (Northern Ireland)
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Personal Export Scheme
  Personal Export Scheme
  Private Capital (Confiscation)
  Private Capital (Confiscation)
SCOTLAND
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  General Teaching Council
  General Teaching Council
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Swan Committee's Report
  Swan Committee's Report
BOARD OF TRADE
  Computers and Equipment (Investment Grants)
  Computers and Equipment (Investment Grants)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
TRANSPORT
  Freight Corporation and Holding Company (Acquisition of Businesses)
  Freight Corporation and Holding Company (Acquisition of Businesses)
COAL
  Retail Coal Distribution
  Retail Coal Distribution
ELECTRICITY
  Power Stations, Bedford
  Power Stations, Bedford
WALES
  Trunk Road Picnic Areas (Public Conveniences)
  Trunk Road Picnic Areas (Public Conveniences)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth

VIETNAM: UNITED STATES AND USE OF BRITISH AIRCRAFT
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether negotiations are proceeding for the Government-controlled firm of Short Brothers and Harland to sell military aircraft to the United States Government for use in Vietnam.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, Government policy remains unchanged. It is that arms—and this term includes any aircraft for use in a military role—may not be sold by British firms to the armed forces of other countries for use in Vietnam.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but is it not the case that these aircraft are the military type of Sky van transport aircraft? Is it not the case that negotiations for them have been with the Pentagon in Washington? And is not the war against Vietnam indivisible? How can there be any guarantee whether these aircraft are used for so-called civilian purposes or military purposes; that they will not be assisting the Americans in the Vietnam war?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I understand that the United States Department of Defence has a potential interest in the Skyvan, the kind of aeroplane we are talking about, which exists at the moment only in a civilian version. There is no application before the Government for a licence to sell these aeroplanes abroad, and so it is a matter that will have to be considered if and when such an application materializes.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, again expressing appreciation to my noble friend for that answer, may I ask him this question? Would not these aircraft be very important for the purpose of rehabilitation uses? Further, in view of the more hopeful development of negotiations in Paris, could not any licence for them be held up until a situation exists where rehabilitation can be commenced?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sure that the aircraft could be useful in many roles, constructive as well as destructive. I think the question of the application must await the moment if and when it materialises.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is not the order in question for a licence to build these aircraft in the United States and not to purchase them from stocks built in Belfast? Can the noble Lord say whether the Government's objections—which I have no doubt we all share—to supplying aircraft for the Vietnam conflict extends to prohibition on licensing building operations overseas?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that is another question, and I know the whole House will agree with me when I say that the situation in the last week or two has made it such that, with any luck, all these considerations will become hypothetical before any deal can reach any conclusive stage.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, is it not important to distinguish between the military and civil versions of the Skyvan? Would my noble friend agree that Shorts should not be prevented from selling the civil version in the United States because of the policy of the United States Government in Vietnam?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it seems important to distinguish between the two versions of the plane, one of which exists and the other of which does not exist. The general policy I have already stated in my first Answer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that these are the military version of the Skyvan transport aircraft?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is it not about time we approached the question of exports with an attitude of mind that encourages and not discourages Britain's exports?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we have to bear in mind the two considerations which may on occasion conflict. On the one hand, exports are a good thing because they bring in foreign currency; on the other hand, we are one of the co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference which gives us a special position with regard to the Vietnam war.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, if it is undesirable to supply military aircraft to the United States in Vietnam, is it not all the more undesirable to supply them to such a Government as that in Baghdad which is using them indiscriminately against the civilian population in Kurdistan?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I really should be grateful for notice of that question.

TELEPHONE SERVICE: S.T.D. FAILURES AND CALL CHARGES
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 operator-controlled calls made necessary by a failure of the self-dialling procedure will in future be charged at the appropriate cheaper rate, thus ending the potential vested interest of the Post Office in mechanical failure of the S.T.D. service.]
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords. Not all subscriber trunk dialled call failures are the fault of the Post Office. Efforts are being made to reduce those that are. The average cost to the Post Office of an operator-controlled trunk call is twice that of an S.T.D. call. Charges reflect this difference. Callers without S.T.D. must pay operator rates. It would be unfair if customers on S.T.D. used the operator's services at a lower rate than those who do not have S.T.D. facilities.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, which I frankly cannot quite understand, may I ask him whether he can give me some estimate of the cost to the G.P.O. of misrouted S.T.D. calls and whether extra staff are engaged on this?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that is a difficult one to understand as well. The position is that in 8·1 per cent. of all S.T.D. calls made in 1967–68, the main cause of failure was congestion on the trunk routes. Up to 1,000 new trunk circuits are being provided each month to relieve this. As regards the other question, 28·9 per cent. of subscribers failed to get their S.T.D. calls through; 15 per cent. of calls were not completed because the customer's number was engaged; 7 per cent. because there was no reply as the chap had gone out; and about 4 per cent. because the number was incorrectly dialled.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, how does the noble Lord know whether the failure is due to the dialling procedure or to the fact that the wrong number has been dialled?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I said that about 4 per cent. were due to the fact that the wrong number was dialled or the number was not correctly dialled.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, how is that known?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the Post Office is very clever in getting all the figures that are necessary to answer the most extraordinary questions asked in this House.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that apparently the Post Office is not clever enough to have an efficient system of S.T.D. calls?
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask an extraordinary question? When may we all hope to have S.T.D. facilities?
LORD BOWLES: By 1975, my Lords.

UNPAID COURT FINES
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the total amount of unpaid court fines in the United Kingdom on the latest date for which figures are available; and what proportion, if any, of that total is now deemed to be irrecoverable]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, in 1968 the Home Office received from the courts in England and Wales, outside Inner London, fines totalling £12,127,174, and £198,527 was written off as irrecoverable. That is about 1·6 per cent. The arrears on December 31, 1968, amounted to £3,749,625, but they included fines the time for payment of which had not expired. I regret that comparable information is not available for Scotland, where there is no comprehensive central record of fines paid into courts, unpaid fines or fines written off as irrecoverable.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Can he say whether the courts have power to record a liability to a fine on an offender's insurance card; and, if not, would such power help the situation?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the courts have no such power. As to whether it would help, I should have thought there were enough recourses in law to make the noble Lord's suggestion unnecessary. Certainly it would involve a great deal of work to small purpose, because if the amount of fines written off is something like 1½per cent., part of which must come under the new powers of the courts to reduce fines, it does not seem to me that such a stringent proposal as that is required at all.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, for how long are unpaid fines carried forward? Is it up to the period allowed by the Statute of Limitation? I cannot quite understand why they should be written off at the end of one year.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry if my reply misled the noble Lord. The amount of £198,000 that I gave
206
was the amount that had been written off during the year. Some of those fines would, of course, have been imposed in earlier years, just as the amount of £12 million-odd received during the year would be in part fines imposed during 1967. I mentioned that the amount still outstanding was some £3¾ million, but of course 98½ per cent. of that could be expected to be recovered. As to when they are written off, they are written off when the court decides that it is not going to get them.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied with the procedure for recovery of fines which are overdue? Also, is he satisfied with this writing off procedure, which means that those who have been fined for criminal offences escape without paying any penalty at all?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot accept that of necessity they escape without paying any penalty. That would arise only if they paid no fines at all, but, as the noble and learned Viscount is aware, we inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 1967 a provision for the courts to collect fines by instalments. We are having research into the working of the new 1967 provisions, and perhaps I shall be able to answer that question properly in a few months' time. Meanwhile, things seem to be going pretty well. In Inner London the irrecoverable part is only 1·4 per cent.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me whether this very small figure of 1½ per cent. is perhaps due to deaths, to people permanently leaving the country or to other such reasons? It seems to me a very small proportion to explain in any other way.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that the small proportion is explained by the general probity of the British people and the efficiency of the courts. My noble friend has suggested obvious reasons for writing off fines. If a person is dead or has gone to another part of the world, of course we must write them off. But when we think of the possibilities for fines being irrecoverable, 1½ per cent. is a very small percentage, and a most gratitfying one.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS AND ENTRY CERTIFICATES
3.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to make the system of compulsory entry certificates for Commonwealth immigrants workable by (a) providing an adequate staff at the British High Commissions and (b) completing arrangements with Commonwealth Governments for expeditious communications with applicants at distant places.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that entry certificates have been issued by British High Commissions in Commonwealth countries since 1962, when the first Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed. The new requirement that entry certificates shall be compulsory for Commonwealth citizens coming to this country for settlement is an extension of these arrangements, and additional entry certificate officers will shortly be sent to High Commission Offices where the work is likely to be heaviest. Commonwealth Governments have not been asked to make special arrangements for communication with distant places in their countries. This is because experience over the past seven years has not indicated any special need for them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him these supplementary questions? First, is he aware that during the Third Reading debate on this matter it was clearly indicated that there was a very inadequate staff for dealing with the larger number of applications which will be made, but that many of us were reassured by the answer of the Minister, who indicated that the staff would be doubled? Could he now say to what extent the staff is to be doubled? In regard to the second part of my Question, is it not the case that in India and Pakistan, and in the small islands in the Caribbean, a large number of applicants
208
will live at distant places, with no reasonable opportunity to present their cases at the High Commission offices? Is it not therefore desirable that there should be some consultation with Commonwealth Governments so that these new arrangements can be facilitated?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, on the subject of the inadequate number of staff, I think I can best indicate the extent to which we are attempting to deal with this by saying that under the new requirements the work-load is approximately doubled and the staff is being approximately trebled; so this means that we are taking good care to see that the number of extra entry certificate officers is sufficient to meet the need. On the question of people living in distant places in the Caribbean and elsewhere, I can only say that in the past we have not discovered that this has been an insuperable difficulty. Where people live in distant places they usually have to come to the principal cities in any case to get their passports; and in order to get their entry certificates the same thing naturally applies. I can only repeat what I said in my original Answer: that our experience since 1962 has indicated that there is no need for any additional resource of this kind to be provided.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what consultations have taken place with voluntary bodies in this country with regard to the provision of advice, particularly to dependants, in the countries of origin; and whether any grant will be made to assist in this quite useful service?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that all this has indeed been made clear in your Lordships' House by my noble friend. The answer is that there has been full consultation with the voluntary bodies, that there will be such a grant, and that the amount of it is now being considered.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will look again at the second part of the Question set down by my noble friend Lord Brockway, with regard to distant places? Is it not a fact that in the Caribbean there are many islands where, of course, there is no High Commissioner's office, and where the transport facilities are not very easy? May I ask him whether he

209
would have another look at this matter to see if further help can be given in this regard?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to have another look at it. I cannot, however, undertake that the answer will be very much different. I am advised that the work-load in the Caribbean does not make the provision of this kind of thing necessary. The scheme has now been working since 1962—for seven years—and there has been no indication that this kind of thing is necessary. The extra work-load brought about by the new requirement falls largely in India and Pakistan, and not in the Caribbean at all.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is a general practice in the Civil Service that when the work is doubled the staff is trebled?
LORD CHALFONT: If the number of staff was inadequate before, yes.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will ask his office to reconsider this whole matter? Is he aware that many Members of this House, not only from this side, who have some knowledge of this question, know that before the new arrangements were made applicants had sometimes to wait for six days in front of iron gates before their applications were considered; and that at very distant places, more in Pakistan than in India—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD BROCKWAY: This is a terribly serious question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I am bound to say that he made these very considerable and forceful points in a fairly long speech on the Third Reading, and I had the impression that my noble friend Lord Stonham answered them pretty fully. I would only suggest that if he would ask a rather short, sharp question, then another Minister will have a go.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I will try to do so. May I ask the Minister whether his Department will look very
210
seriously at this issue, from the point of view both of the personnel able to deal with applicants and of the appalling difficulty of people in distant villages being able to make their applications when they are, very often, 500 miles away?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, my noble friend 'will know, of course, that it is the Home Department that is responsible for the administration of this Commonwealth Immigrants Act. My noble friend made all these points before, and I thought they had all been fully and adequately answered by my noble friend. But, of course, I will take note, and will undertake that what my noble friend has said is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments My Lords, copies of the Report relating to the Bill, which makes it more readily understandable, will be available in the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House and in the Vote Office., in another place. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

TATTOOING OF MINORS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL
3.28 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the indulgence of

211
the House to intervene for the briefest possible time? This subject is perhaps 150 years old. Nevertheless, I had the honour to be the first in this House to pursue it again, some few years ago, after the South African Government had been the first among our family at that time to introduce decimal coinage; and I had many passages of arms with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he was the Minister concerned. I should like to make just a few observations.
The first is that I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government upon having brought it thus far. Secondly, I welcome the pound as the unit. I do not think the arguments for the 10s. unit were sound. I welcome the pound for status reasons. Thirdly, I do not consider that the smallest coin in the decimal system now to be brought in—namely, about 2½d.—is too small, for the very good reason that 2½d. to-day is the equivalent of a farthing thirty years ago, and the farthing was hardly used at that time except when playing cards. Very soon 2½d. will be worth very much less; and it will not be found to be too heavy a coin. Furthermore, I do not support the 6d. As well as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I am a shopkeeper and I know what a fearful muddle the saleswomen and men will get into if they have to deal with the 6d. any longer. Moreover, the extent to which the 6d. is required for automatic machines is almost negligible. I therefore think that the Bill is a piece of good business done by this House and I congratulate this House and the Government.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass, I should like to say how much I appreciated what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. The House will probably agree that a word of good will to the Bill on its way to the Statute Book is called for. There were some disputations, but the controversies were always carried out with absolute fairness. I thank those who took part and I acknowledge the scrupulous fairness shown throughout the discussions that we have had. We ought also, I think, to offer good wishes to those who will be responsible for the change-over period and, in particular, this House may care
212
to send best wishes to my noble friend Lord Fiske, Chairman of the Decimal Currency Board, who was in hospital throughout the time that we considered the Bill here but who just this week, I am glad to say, is back home again. He will have some of the burdens and I am sure that we all wish him well. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill passed.

TANZANIA BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARMY RESERVE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS BILL
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should not like this Bill to leave your Lordships' House without recording the admiration of this House and of the Government for the work of the Bridges Commission, under the chairmanship of a most distinguished Member of this House, which sat between 1958 and 1960 and on the Report of which most of what is in the Bill is based.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall detain the House for only a moment to say how glad I am that the noble Lord has referred to the work done by Lord Bridges and the Commission over which he presided. I was Chairman of the Commission appointed by the Church Assembly to frame the Pastoral Measure, which dealt among other matters with the problem of the churches which had become redundant, and I had a special opportunity of appreciating the value of the work which Lord Bridges and his colleagues did in handling that very difficult problem. The procedure for dealing with churches that have become redundant, which is now laid down in the

213
Pastoral Measure, follows exactly the work of Lord Bridges's Commission. I am sure that your Lordships, and all who are interested in these matters, will feel deeply grateful to him for what he and his Commission were able to do.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments to the Foreign Compensation Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(Lord Chalfont.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The reference is to Bill (35) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (5).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it alters the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed. The House will remember that this Bill was passed on March 27 with five Amendments. Four of these have been accepted in another place. Amendment No. 2 which was to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 1 of the Bill as it originally came to us, was not accepted, and it has been decided in another place that this subsection ought to stand part of the Bill. The relevant subsection reads as follows:
"When so directed by the Treasury, the custodian of enemy property shall, by way of repaying a payment of £500,000 made out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the agreement recited above for the payment of that sum to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pay the like sum into the Consolidated Fund out of money held by him, being former property of a Baltic State or ceded territory."
As the House will see from the Message before us, a question of financial
214
arrangements made by the Commons is involved. I need not, I think, elaborate on this. The effect of omitting the subsection is to leave the burden of the payment of £500,000 to the Soviet Government, which has already been made, with the Exchequer instead of recouping the Exchequer from the assets, as was explicitly envisaged in Article 5 of tile Agreement with the Soviet Government of January 5, 1968. It has never been seriously argued, I think, in this House or indeed in another place, that this payment should fall upon the taxpayer rather than upon the claimants to whom the assets are to be distributed and in whose interests the Agreement with the Soviet Government was concluded, and I can think of no reason why it should. As I understand it, the reason why this House deleted the subsection, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said in the course of an earlier debate, was that it was the only way in which disapproval of the Agreement with the Soviet Government could be shown and would give another place another opportunity of considering this matter. Now that it has been reconsidered in another place, which adheres to the view that the subsection should be retained it is the Government's hope that this House -will not feel it necessary to insist on this deletion.
As for the provision in the Agreement of which this House was seeking to express its disapproval, it is perhaps too much to expect that I could at this late stage, bearing in mind all that has been said in this House, convert many noble Lords opposite to the Government's view that the payment of this £500,000 to the Soviet Government was a price which had to be paid, and was worth paying, for an Agreement with them. Nor, I think, would the House wish me to take up any more time in going once more over the ground which was fully debated when the Bill was before us. My Lords, may I perhaps subscribe to the general atmosphere of good will that we have in the House this afternoon by saying how grateful and appreciative I was, as the Government spokesman on this Bill, for the care and expert knowledge with which this Bill was considered. I believe that the Bill as it has now come back is a better Bill than the one which arrived here in the first place. I hope that as noble

215
Lords have now made their protest they will be content and will not press any further for the deletion of the subsection from the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Chalfont.)
3.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said about the atmosphere of good will that prevails in this House this afternoon, I am afraid that I cannot resist expressing views which perhaps cannot be translated as being good will. Presumably this is the last occasion on which we shall be considering this humiliating and objectionable piece of legislation. On May 1, in another place, when your Lordships' Amendments were considered and when, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has told us four Amendments out of five were accepted, it was pointed out that in Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed, privilege was involved. Nevertheless, we are to consider this afternoon the Reason advanced and accepted in another place for disagreement with this Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has explained to us. We have already discussed at considerable length this squalid transaction between the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary and Mr. Kosygin, and I will not weary your Lordships by again going over all the details, but I feel bound w say that this transaction and what has flowed from it seem to me to epitomise some of the most unpleasant aspects of Government as it is at present practised in this country.
I was surprised and dismayed, when your Lordships were discussing the important legal question of the desirability or otherwise of appeal either against a provisional determination or a final determination of the Foreign Compensation Commission, but not against both on the same matter, to hear the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack twice assure this House that the Government did not stand to lose or gain, whatever the solution. It seemed to me at the time a strange remark and to suggest, if I may say so, an attitude which was not consonant with the high
216
responsibility of the Lord High Chancellor of England. Perhaps if this observation had not also been twice repeated by the Solicitor General in another place when dealing with the same question, I should have dismissed it as simply an unfortunate choice of words. Of course, my Lords, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and his right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General, would, one would have hoped, in any case have been concerned solely that the system of law should gain. Thanks to the initiative of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, did finally introduce a new clause which has now been accepted by both Houses of Parliament, and I am grateful to him for this.
But, my Lords, what has all this to do with the consideration of the Commons disagreement with Amendment No. 2? It is this: that, unlike in the case of appeal from a determination of the Foreign Compensation Commission, in the case of Mr. Kosygin's visit to the United Kingdom there was much to be gained or lost by the Government in the appearance or otherwise of a diplomatic success. As your Lordships now know, little or nothing to the United Kingdom's advantage came out of Mr. Kosygin's visit. But in order to present some semblance of success and to achieve political gain for the Government, the Executive has appropriated funds to which it had no right in equity; it has given gratuitously £500,000 to the Government which had oppressed, murdered and subjugated the peoples to whom the funds belonged; it has shown complete contempt for Parliament; it has called in question our reliability as international bankers and it has humiliated honourable men and women in both Houses of Parliament who, because of our present Parliamentary system, have felt bound to support it.
Seven powerful and carefully argued speeches were made by right honourable and honourable Members of the Opposition in another place in support of your Lordships' Amendment No. 2. The Government Benches were practically empty and only the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke briefly for the Government. There was evidently as little enthusiasm

217
to do the Executive's dirty business in another place as there was in your Lordships' House—and yet 95 Government supporters endorsed their bosses' actions. It is my belief, my Lords, that if the honest British people up and down the country knew all the facts of this squalid story as they have gradually and painfully been exposed to us in Parliament, they would be ashamed of the Government and, I believe, resentful that, through the arrogance and uncontrolled power of the Executive, they have themselves been put to shame.
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend has said. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has not taken on the Homeric task again of trying to convince Members of this House that the bargain to pay the £500,000 was justified. I have said all I have to say on that matter and I do not propose to repeat what I have already said. I am glad that the noble Lord did not attempt to reopen that subject on this occasion. I am glad, too, that he recognised that in the course of the debates in this House we had secured improvements to the Bill.
I do not want to part company from my noble friend to any material degree, but I must say that I did not read any sinister significance at all into the words of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in relation to the appeal system. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was pressed as heavily as I could press him—and I am, I think, at least of considerable physical weight—to give way on that point; and I must say that I think it was perfectly justified to say that the Government, as such, had no interest in the matter, whichever way it went. I know, also, from the time that I held that office, that there always has been a considerable weight of opinion in certain quarters against there being any appeal procedure. We had a very useful discussion on it, and I think that the Bill has been considerably improved by the Amendments which were ultimately tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
I did press the second Amendment to a Division, and I did so in order that this House could express its views upon the matter and with the object of enabling
218
another place to give further consideration to it. That has now taken place, and I certainly should not be one to suggest for one moment, that course having been taken and a Division having taken place really on that basis, that we should now insist on that Amendment.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, let me say, first, that I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for saying what he has said about his interpretation of the remarks made by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. I am sure that that, coining from him, will have done a great deal to reassure anyone in this House who thought that there was anything sinister implied by those remarks—I cannot believe that there are very many.
My Lords, I had hoped not to reopen this matter, except in the most formal way, but I cannot, I feel, let pass what the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, has said. Certainly he is right in saying that a good deal of the feeling of good will that existed before he stood up has now been effectively dispelled. I cannot really accept as a fair categorisation of either the Agreement with the Soviet Union or the Foreign Compensation Bill that followed it, the words "squalid", "humiliating" or "shameful". I must reject also emphatically the suggestion that this Agreement was arrived at with the Soviet Union for some ephemeral diplomatic advantage that would accrue to this Government. That is simply not the case. As I said before, and I will say it very briefly again, noble Lords opposite are no more entitled to use this kind of emotive language to describe this payment, in a situation in which there was almost complete incompatibility between Soviet and British views on the legal aspect and, indeed, total absence of agreement in general, than to describe any agreement which involves the payment of money by the British Government. The choice was between a settlement on the terms obtained or the continuation of long-drawn-out negotiations for many years, with no prospect of any better settlement at the end of the road.
The Government took the view that £500,000, a very small percentage of the total assets, was worth paying for Soviet agreement to forgo their claim to the assets and to place no impediment to those assets being distributed to our claimants. We believed that the

219
majority of our claimants, in whose interests the settlement was being sought, even though they have no legal title to the assets other than that which we now create through this Bill, and who have been waiting for some thirty years, would far prefer a settlement on these terms with the prospect of early distribution, even though this means a very small reduction in the assets available for distribution. We thought that they would prefer this than indefinitely prolong negotiations in the faint hope that we may save this £500,000 for them. That is the case for the payment and for making the payment out of the assets.
The case for the Agreement we have argued at length in your Lordships' House. Even if I still have not been able wholly to persuade noble Lords opposite that the bargain which we made was a reasonable one, I emphatically repudiate any suggestion that it was "squalid", "shameful" or "humiliating". I believe that it is a good agreement. It was made in the interests of the people to whom this money will now be distributed. I hope, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, that noble Lords will not seek to press any further for the deletion of this subsection from the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Report received accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Business carried on by company controlled by landlord
". At the end of section 30 of the Act of 1954 there shall be added the following subsection:—
(3) Where the landlord has a controlling interest in a company any business to be carried on by the company shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(g) of this
220
section as a business to be carried on by him.
For the purposes of this subsection, a person has a controlling interest in a company if and only if either—

(a) he is a member of it and able, without the consent of any other person, to appoint or remove the holders of at least a majority of the directorships, or

(b) he holds more than one-half of its equity share capital, there being disregarded any shares held by him in a fiduciary capacity or as nominee for another person;

and in this subsection 'company' and 'share' have the meanings assigned to them by section 455(1) of the Companies Act 1948 and equity share capital' the meaning assigned to it by section 154(5) of that Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This Amendment enables a landlord to oppose a request for the grant of a new tenancy of premises on the ground that a company in which he has a controlling interest intends to occupy the premises for the purposes of its business. It is intended to cure the defect in the operation of Section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, mentioned in paragraph 5(i) of the Law Commission's Report on the Act, whereby a landlord can oppose a tenant's application for a new tenancy on the ground that he intends to occupy the holding for the purpose of his own business but not for a business to be carried on by a company which he controls. There is no justification for distinguishing in this connection between a business carried on by the landlord in person and one carried on by a company which he controls. The distinction can in any event be circumvented in many cases. The landlord can resist the new tenancy on the ground that he intends to occupy the holding for his business, and subsequently transfer his interest to a company. The Amendment accordingly provides that in Section 30(1)(g) a business to be carried on by the landlord is to include a business to be carried on by a company in which he has a controlling interest. A controlling interest is defined in the second paragraph.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I would simply say that I welcome this Amendment as being another piece of useful clearing up. The noble and learned Lord has explained its purpose; it seems very sensible, and I hope that the House will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Grant of new tenancy in some cases where section 30(1)(f) applies.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 44, after ("holding") insert ("and without interfering to a substantial extent or for a substantial time with the use of the holding for the purposes of the business carried on by the tenant")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This Amendment is designed to prevent the possibility, inherent in Clause 7 in its present form, that the court might grant a new tenancy to a tenant who is willing to give the landlord access and facilities for a complete demolition and reconstruction of the premises.
The clause provides that the landlord shall not be able to resist a claim to a new lease on the ground that he needs possession for demolition or reconstruction of the premises, where the tenant is willing to give him access and facilities for carrying out his work. But as the tenant will be retaining notional possession in any case where he is willing to give such access and facilities, no matter how substantial the proposed redevelopment may be, it could be argued that in any such case the landlord does not need possession and accordingly is not entitled to reject the tenant's claim to a new lease. This criticism of the clause, which was advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on Second Reading and in Committee, is met by the Amendment. The Amendment ensures that even where the tenant agrees to provide access and facilities for the landlord's works he will become entitled to a new lease only if the execution of the works will not substantially interfere—either in point of space or in point of time—with the use of the holding for the purpose of the tenant's business.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for meeting this point. It was not only I who was worried about the scope of the clause as originally drawn: others who have much more experience than I of the operation of Part II of the 1954 Act thought it possible that this condition went too far as it stood. It is a matter of balance and it seems, from the noble and learned Lord's Amendment,
222
that this balance is now restored. Previously I think it went too far the other way. In my view, the matter is now remedied and again, with many thanks to the noble and learned Lord for meeting this point, I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Saving for tenant temporarily out of occupation]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Clause 9 was widely discussed at the Committee stage of the Bill, and I also mentioned it on Second Reading. I think it would be tedious and unnecessary to go through the arguments which I put forward previously to suggest that, although the provisions in Clause 9 mere no doubt extremely sensible, in the way they have been expressed the clause will add nothing to the clarity of the situation as it exists. I drew attention to the way in which Mr. Justice Cross interpreted the word "occupation" in the second Caplan case when it came before him.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his usual courtesy, said that he would consider this argument again. I have considered it again also and I still think that Clause 9 adds nothing to the clarity which we seek. I do not think that it carries out the objective which the Law Commission suggested should be achieved in this part of the new legislation, in that it does not seem to have any effect upon the objective way in which occupation is looked at. That is already built into the law, as Mr. Justice Cross has described, and this clause does nothing whatever to change that. The noble and learned Lord agreed with me that there was only a small number of cases on which this would impinge and I would suggest that this is not a worthwhile clause in the Bill and that it ought not to occupy the Statute Book. The courts are capable of dealing with this and have already shown that they can do so fairly. Therefore, I would suggest that Parliament should leave the law as it is and leave out Clause 9. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government would advise the

223
House to accept this Amendment. I need not, I think, recapitulate the argument put forward by the noble Viscount. The Law Commission have indicated that they do not attach a great deal of importance to this clause. The Government have considered the argument put forward on Committee stage by the noble Viscount, and they accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause:
Group of Companies.
".For subsection (3) of section 42 of the Act of 1954 (Group of Companies) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(3) Where the landlord's interest is held by a member of a group

(a) the reference in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section 30 of this Act to intended occupation by the landlord for the purposes of a business to be carried on by him shall be construed as including intended occupation by any member of the group for the purposes of a business to be carried on by that member; and

(b) the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the purchase or creation of any interest shall be construed as a reference to a purchase from or creation by a person other 'than a member of the group.'"

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is another matter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on Committee stage that he would look at with sympathy. I need hardly tell the House that my attempt at drafting a suitable Amendment at that stage came to grief. I do not believe I have ever yet drafted an Amendment to any legislation which was not open to very good criticism by the Parliamentary draftsmen, and I cannot pretend that this elegant Amendment is altogether my own work. Nevertheless, if the House agrees that it should be inserted into the Bill, I believe it will make a useful contribution to the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act, because it allows, for a particularly technical purpose, a group of companies to be treated as one when they are the landlord, in exactly the same way as they are under the existing law treated as one when they are the tenant. It therefore puts them in the same position, and, I hope, contributes to the balance between
224
the landlord and the tenant in each case, which in both the 1954 Act and Part I of this Bill Parliament has attempted to achieve. I hope, therefore, with the indication that the noble and learned Lord will look favourably upon something that would amend this particular provision, the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has explained, we have considered with him the point which he raised on the Committee stage of the Bill, and this Amendment is in fact an agreed Amendment in which the Parliamentary draftsmen have assisted. It would not, I think, assist the House if I repeated the arguments which the noble Viscount has already so clearly explained. The Government ask the House to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 12 insert the following new clause:
Provision to enable easier comprehension of Part I of this Act
".There shall be published in the Queen's Printer's copy of this Act, after the 2nd Schedule hereto, a reprinted version of those sections of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 which have been amended by this Part of this Act, as so amended, together with such new sections which have been added to the said Part II of the Act of 1954 by this Part of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, although I threatened on the Committee stage that I would return to the question of the Keeling Schedule to set out the whole of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 as amended by this Bill, I thought that it would be improper to ask the printers to go through the exercise of putting down this vast Amendment again. I have therefore put down a clause to introduce a short further discussion upon the question of how Parliament can make it clearer to members of the public what we have done when we have passed this Bill.
I would draw attention to the side note to my new clause, because that is what I am trying to do. I am trying to facilitate easier comprehension of Part I of this Bill, and, of course, Part II

225
of the 1954 Act, as amended by it. One of the difficulties into which I ran on the Committee stage in attempting to provide a full Keeling Schedule was that the necessary clause to which the Schedule is attached is a very difficult thing to draft. It does not only have to say that the Landlord and Tenant Act shall have effect as amended by this Act, as set out in the Schedule. It has to take account of all sorts of other parts of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and various other amendments that have been made since; and it has to make quite certain that in providing in this way for the reprint of the law no change in the law takes place.
I have had correspondence with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this point and he has explained to me that the drafting of this clause is not a simple matter. He has suggested to me (and this I think is particularly relevant now) that it might be useful in due course to append to this Bill a reprint of those sections of the 1954 Act which have been amended by this Part of the Bill, together with the new clauses which were put into the 1954 Act by this Bill. As is patently obvious to the House, Part I of the Bill is continuing to be amended.
There is another point which I think is still under consideration, and which the noble and learned Lord said he would look at. It has not been raised at this stage in this House, but it will be coming, I hope, in the other place; and, for all I know, it may be discovered that there are other worthwhile Amendments which we should take the opportunity of making to this Part of the Bill. Each of those would require a reprint of a Keeling Schedule were it to be put in at this stage, and also, as I understand it, a careful consideration of the paving clause introducing the Keeling Schedule, so that on each occasion one would make quite certain that one was not changing the law by mistake or by a side wind. I certainly do not wish to add to the work of the Parliamentary draftsmen in doing this on each occasion.
However, I still maintain that the complications of this legislation are such that it is the duty of Parliament, and not of those who write textbooks, to set out as clearly as we are able the effect of what we have done. The suggestion in this
226
Amendment (and may I say that I shall not press it), is that we should at the end of the passage of this Bill through Parliament append to it a reprint of the parts that we have changed, together with the additions. This is half-way between a Keeling Schedule, which I put down as an Amendment on the Committee stage, and doing nothing at all. But it is important, for this reason. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that these Keeling Schedules were of importance for the consideration of the matter by Parliamentarians. So they are. He pointed out that the Law Commission in their Report have put as an appendix a reprint of all the clauses that they have amended, together with the new ones that they suggest. We have changed a great deal of that already and, for all I know, there will be further changes in another place. So the Law Commission's Report is not going to be an accurate guide even to the legislators.
I did, however, suggest—and upon reflection other noble Lords may agree with this—that it is not only the legislators who want to know the effect of legislation, particularly, as in this case, where it is a perfectly ordinary landlord or tenant of a small business who will have to apply the Act, and will find it impossible to apply it in many cases without having to seek professional advice. I do not think that they should have to buy expensive textbooks or go to expensive professional advisers in order to discover what it is that Parliament has been doing. I think that Parliament should tell them as clearly as possible and I have set out one way, at any rate, in which this could be done.
I think it is an important principle that Parliament should try to make as clear as possible what is the effect of the legislation that has been passed. I therefore move this Amendment in order that the noble and learned Lord can tell me, if he is able to do so at this stage, whether the Government have had a chance of thinking further about this matter. I hope that they have, because I believe it is important, and I believe it is a principle which would contribute to the aim, which I know he endorses so sincerely, that we should try to make ourselves plain to the public. I beg to move.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to say just a word or two in support of the noble Viscount. I gather that he is not going to press the Amendment, and I can well understand why. But it is of the utmost important, particularly in complicated legislation of this kind, not only that the subject should understand it, but that equally the practitioners should be able to understand in the simplest way what is the effect of the legislation that we are passing. It may not be practicable to do it in exactly the form in which the noble Viscount has suggested, but I hope that it will become the general practice throughout legislation (and I know that it is the wish of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to make legislation simpler for those who are affected by it) that in every case where existing legislation is amended, particularly in a complex form, the exact new legislation will be made available to those who are affected by it. I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to give us an encouraging reply, not only in this case, but generally in all legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment I am prepared to undertake to see that there goes into the Bill, before it receives the Royal Assent, a Keeling Schedule, although I cannot undertake that it will do more than reprint the amended sections. The noble Viscount and I are both enthusiasts of the Keeling Schedules, and perhaps, for any noble Lord who is not familiar with them I might say that what Mr. Keeling did was put into a Bill a Schedule which showed what the legislation would look like if the amendments to the Act proposed by the Bill were made. It has always seemed to me that this is a very useful procedure and that it might very well be developed.
It has transpired that while the noble Viscount is also a Keeling Schedule enthusiast, he is so from rather a different point of view, and for rather different reasons. I have always thought that where you get an Act which is going to amend some existing Act, and you read: "Clause 4, leave out words so-and-so; put in other words" it is very difficult to follow. You really have to take the Act and then write these things in, or take
228
them out, to see what the change proposed is. Therefore, to have such a Schedule is of great convenience for the legislators. That is not, I think, the burden of the noble Viscount's wishes; he is really thinking about the lawyers who are going to use the Act after the Bill has been passed. This is rather a different thing, and results in a Keeling Schedule of a rather different kind.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it would also help the public who do not even resort to the lawyers at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly, my Lords. I am all for helping both. There are difficulties about this, and more than I have myself realised. Perhaps, for the record, I should just say something about the first kind of Keeling Schedule, which differs from the kind which I hope we are going to put in before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
There are reasons of both Parliamentary and administrative convenience for deferring the addition of the Schedule to the last possible stage of the Bill. Keeling Schedules add quite materially and unproductively to the labour of Parliamentary draftsmen and, to a lesser extent, to printing requirements, and to the demands on Parliamentary time. Putting the Schedule together does not involve a great deal of trouble—that is largely a scissors-and-paste job. But its contents will have the force of law, so the Schedule has to be introduced by a clause, which must be drafted with great care, to ensure that every subsequent alteration, textual or otherwise, and every reference to, application or disapplication of the relevant provisions of the earlier Act, is correctly re-enacted. This involves a close examination of all relevant Statutes. Moreover, any amendment made to the Bill during the rest of its passage has to be carried through to the Schedule, and its effect on the introductory clause has to be considered. This involves a great deal of unproductive work. As an example, the Marshalled List of Amendments now before the House contains 14 consequential Amendments to the Keeling Schedule of Part IV set out in Schedule 2; if there were a Keeling Schedule in the Bill relating to Part I similar consequential Amendments would have to be made in that Schedule

229
for every Amendment standing on the Order Paper regarding clauses in Part I. If the addition of the Schedule is deferred to the last possible stage, all this unnecessary work will be avoided. An argument sometimes advanced in favour of such Schedules is the convenience which they afford to Peers and Members of Parliament, but that does not apply to this Bill, as the amended sections are set out in Appendix 2 to the Law Commission Report. My Lords, there are obviously a number of considerations to be borne in mind when one is dealing with Keeling Schedules, and I shall be very happy at any time to have a general Keeling Schedule discussion with the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the undertaking which the noble and learned Lord has given seems to me to be, as I rather expected, a compromise, and it is certainly not one that I would seek to reject. But with great respect to him I should have thought if one was going to set out the amended sections of the 1954 Act one might just as well set out the new sections put in by this Act. But this is a technical matter, and no doubt it could have an effect upon the drafting of the introductory clause. I am in favour of putting in as much as it is possible to put in. and I think that in the end—probably by the time the Bill gets to the Report stage in another place—it will be possible to decide how much, or how little, ought to be done. I am very happy to leave this to the noble and learned Lord, and to his colleagues in another place, in view of the undertaking he has given. I am very grateful to him, and I believe this will be of real assistance I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Contracts for purchase of land affected by land charge, etc.]:
4.16 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 11, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert ("' purchaser' includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person acquiring or intending")
Leave out lines 13 and 14.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments broaden the definition of "purchaser", in Clause 21, so as to exclude the requirement that he should be a purchaser "in good faith and for valuable consideration". The definition in the clause is based on a similar definition in Section 205(1)(xxi) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The particular requirements of "good faith" and of having given "valuable consideration" are, however, unnecessary complications to Clause 21. The clause is designed to protect a person who enters into a contract for the purchase of an interest in land and who at that stage, under the existing law, is fixed with notice of matters of which he has no knowledge and cannot be expected to discover. For this purpose it is unnecessary that the clause should be confined to a purchaser who acts in good faith, or gives valuable consideration.
The first Amendment deletes from the definition of "purchaser", in subsection (3) of the clause, references to "good faith" and "valuable consideration". The expression "in good faith" is now taken to imply that a purchaser has taken all reasonable care, and made all proper inquiries: and in this sense proper inquiries would normally include a search of the register. The clause, however, is concerned with a situation in which a person contracting to buy land is unable to search the register effectively, because at that stage he may have no knowledge of the names against which he should search. Inclusion of the expression "good faith" in the definition of purchaser would be liable to cause confusion, and might induce purchasers and their advisers to make more rigorous inquiries before contract than are at present required in practice. The deletion of "valuable consideration" is desirable because at the time of entering into a contract for a future purchase (with which the clause is concerned) the question of having furnished valuable consideration does not arise.
The second Amendment is consequential on the first, and unless any noble Lord thinks otherwise, I will put them both together.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Powers of Lands Tribunal and court in relation to restrictive covenants affecting land]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 15, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 18, and insert—
("(2) So much of section 84(1)(a) as follows the words 'obsolete, or' shall be a separate paragraph (aa) and shall be amended as follows:—
(a) after the word that'").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if this Amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 9 is one of a series of drafting Amendments which it may be convenient, I hope, to discuss together. They are Amendments Nos. 9, 12, 15, 27 and 30.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: And 11.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And 11. I thought I had mentioned 11. The first of these Amendments splits paragraph (a) of Section 84(1), into two separate paragraphs, (a) and (aa). Section 84(1), paragraphs (a) (which is itself amplified in subsection (1A)), (b) and (c) set out the grounds on which the Lands Tribunal may discharge or modify restrictive covenants. Whilst each of paragraphs (b) and (c) specifies a single ground, paragraph (a) specifies two grounds: first, that the restriction ought to be deemed obsolete; and secondly, that its continuance would impede some reasonable user of the land. The Amendment secures that each of these two distinct grounds is contained in a separate paragraph. The division is particularly material in view of the fact that the new subsection (1A) applies to the second ground only.
The Amendment adopts the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, during the Committee stage of the Bill. The second, third and fourth Amendments are consequential on the first. The second and third are designed to set out the Amendments contained in Clause 25(2) with greater clarity by means of paragraphing. The fourth Amendment substitutes a reference to the new paragraph (aa) for paragraph (a) of subsection (1). My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think this is an excellent
232
group of Amendments. One always has this difficulty, in referring to Section 84(1)(a), as it now is, that one has to talk about "Section 84(1)(a) first" or "Section 84(1)(a) secondly". Therefore, in effect and in practice in the Lands Tribunal, and in the practitioners' terminology, it is already split up. All that this Amendment is doing is to make that separation formal. It will make reference easier; I am sure it will make the law more clear, and I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is suggesting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have dealt with Amendment No. 11 in dealing with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move Amendment No.11.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 19, after ("below",") insert ("(b)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have also dealt with Amendment No. 12 already. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 21, after ("and") insert ("(c)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment also we discussed when moving Amendment No. 9. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 24, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(aa)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 28, leave out ("either").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the one major subject of dispute which I believe is left in this Bill. It is quite impossible to follow any argument upon it unless your Lordships would be so good as to look at Schedule 2 to the Bill where the legislation as it is now proposed is set out in full. I have already addressed a number of remarks to your Lordships on this mattter in Committee, but I think that this is something to which one must return. The Amendment

233
is in fact only a paving Amendment, and with it go Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which are really dealing with the point of the matter.
The situation, as I understand it, is this. At the present moment, the trouble about the power of the Lands Tribunal to modify or discharge a restrictive covenant under what is now Section 84(1)(aa) of the 1925 Act (after we have accepted the last Amendment—that is the second limb of what used to be paragraph (a)) is that one has to show that the proposition one is putting forward is the only reasonable user of the land, and that the covenant, which may well date back for some time, is restricting this only reasonable user. We have already amended the law to the extent that the text does not now refer to the "only" reasonable user; all it is now necessary to show is that the covenant is impeding "some" reasonable user of the land. But then the Bill goes on to deal with the interpretation of "some reasonable user" and to tell the Lands Tribunal what it is that they may take into account. It is at this stage that the new Sections (1A) and (1B) have been put in, in order to give guidelines to the Lands Tribunal.
What has been done, therefore, is not only to ease the situation so that the Lands Tribunal may consider some reasonable alternative to that which is insisted upon by the covenant, but in addition they are entitled to look at certain matters. One of the things they can do—and this is in the new Section (1A)—is this. They are authorised to discharge or modify the restriction
"by reference to its impeding some reasonable user … in any case in which the Lands Tribunal is satisfied that the restriction, in impeding that user, either—
(a) does not secure to persons entitled to the benefit of it any practical benefits of substantial value to them"—
and there is going to be an Amendment to that—or is contrary to the public interest; and then in looking at whether it is contrary to the public interest, among other things, they take account of the
"development plan and any declared or ascertainable pattern for the grant or refusal of planning permissions in relevant areas"—
and, of course, I think inevitably, any planning permission that has actually been granted for the land itself. To this situation is to be added a perfectly clear provision (the position has been most
234
obscure hitherto) that if the Lands Tribunal do on these grounds modify or discharge the restrictive covenant, any person who is entitled to the benefit of it is to be suitably compensated. This is a matter to which we shall come under one of the noble and learned Lord's subsequent Amendments.
There is a balance to be struck here, and I must at once confess that it is a matter of judgment to see which way the balance ought to go. I think one must take a concrete example, as I did before. Let us suppose that there is a house which has been built as part of an estate of houses, all in similar plots and all at very much the same time, and that it stands in an acre of land. The house is subject to a restrictive covenant which says that there shall not be built on that site more than one dwelling. The same thing applies to other houses and other plots round about, and there are people in the neighbourhood who are entitled to rely upon that restriction and, indeed, relying on that restriction, m my of them have gone to live there and bought their houses there because they like to live in a low density area.
It may well be that someone comes along—and it is not a question of his motives; they may be perfectly proper motives—and says, "I think it would be a good idea to have four houses on this plot." That of course is contrary to the covenant, and before he can set about building, without the fear of an injunction being placed upon him, he must go to the Lands Tribunal to have the restrictive covenant removed.
The Bill as it is now drafted would allow the Lands Tribunal to say that four houses is some reasonable user of the land. Many people perhaps, if this was in an area where there was a housing shortage, as is the case in so many places, would say, with the Minister of Housing and Local Government in many circulars and other of his publications, "We must make the best possible use of urban land." And this person who wishes to put four houses on the land would therefore think he was acting in a public-spirited way and helping to fill a mach felt need. He would go first of all to the local planning authority—and let us assume that they grant him planning permission for this project. He then goes to the Lands Tribunal and asks them to

235
discharge or modify the restrictive covenant so that instead of having only one house he may have four. The Lands Tribunal are entitled to do this, under the Bill as it now stands, if they are satisfied that the restriction, in impeding the four houses, is contrary to the public interest. They may consult with Government Departments; they may consult with Ministers and their Departments. They are expressly entitled to take into account the development plan, and are also entitled to take into account any other planning permissions granted in the area which give an indication of the way in which development is going.
The development plan is of course very important, because this may say that in this particular area of the town, or whatever it is, it is the policy of the local planning authority that densities shall be increased. Moreover this is done, as I have already said, against the background that there is a housing shortage in that area, and this is the justification for increasing densities. Therefore the Lands Tribunal can look at the development plan, they can look at the actual planning permission and at other planning permissions in the area. What they are interested in is to decide what is the public interest. This is a matter of planning. I will come on to the other things that the Lands Tribunal can look at in a moment, but let us just stop there.
So far it is a matter of planning, and there is only one arbiter of planning in any one area at present, namely, the local planning authority, subject, of course, to the guidance of the Minister and the approval of the development plan. They are the people to whom has been entrusted by Parliament the public interest in so far as land use in that area is related. They are the people who decide, democratically and subject to the Minister's control, what form of development is to be allowed and what is not. It seems to me unlikely that it would be easy to argue that something which has been allowed by the local planning authority is contrary to the public interest.
There is a further difficulty in dealing with this matter because any sensible applicant who wishes to rely upon that particular argument will not be so foolish as to bring to the Lands Tribunal the planning officer of the local authority,
236
who may be cross-examined by those who object to this modification or discharge, to say whether or not it is in the public interest to build four houses here. The Lands Tribunal will rely upon the evidence of the planning authority itself and the fact that the proposals must have been passed by this responsible authority. Nor will there be before the Lands Tribunal any representative from any Government Department, or anyone else who can say what is in the public interest. In these circumstances it will be virtually impossible to deny that the proposals for which the modification or discharge is required are indeed in the public interest.
The Lands Tribunal also have to look—and this is the second half of the new subsection (1B)—at the period and the context in which the restriction was created or imposed, and any other material circumstances. There are two points to be made here. In the first instance, I do not object to the Lands Tribunal's looking at the development plan, or at other planning permissions, or indeed at this planning permission, but I do object to their attention being specifically drawn to those, and to specific emphasis being laid upon those matters dealt with particularly in paragraph (b) of the new subsection (1A). It is right in some circumstances that they should look at these things, but I do not think it is right that the whole force of this legislation should now be slanted so severely in favour of the public interest. The Lands Tribunal have also to look at the context and the period when the covenant was imposed.
Then there is the question of compensation. There is this to be said about the context and the period of the restriction. It may be old; it may have related to a time when this particular estate was being split up into building plots; but it may well be, too, that it is the existence of that covenant imposed over all the plots in common which has created the character of that area and has caused people to go to live there and buy their houses and to enjoy it. It may not be anything like so important to look at the period when it was imposed as to consider the effect which its imposition has had upon the people who live there.
We then go on to the question of compensation. It is all very well to say

237
that, because the value of the property next door would be depreciated by the building of the four houses, because they will overlook the garden or because they will be an intrusion into what has hitherto been the character of the neighbourhood, therefore some sum in compensation should be payable. I think that is acceptable and it is right. But you go further than that: you say to the person who bought the house next door, relying upon the existence of this covenant, "We have decided that in the public interest the character of this neighbourhood is to be changed. That is what the local planning authority says and we, the Lands Tribunal, agree that that is in the public interest". You are then saying to that person, "We are arbitrarily changing the character of your area; true, we will compensate for that, but if you wish to continue to live in a neighbourhood possessing this character it will not be here—you must go somewhere else". Therefore you give him no option, if he wishes to maintain this particular character of an area in which to live. He gets no compensation for that.
This is the nearest thing to giving to a private individual the right compulsorily to acquire the benefit of a restrictive covenant—an interest in somebody else's land—that we have seen, perhaps, as somebody suggested to me, since the railway companies were setting up their empires in the last century. If that is what we are doing then I think we are going too far. I do not wish to be immoderate about this matter. I am content that the public interest should be looked at, but not so greatly emphasised.
It will then be said—and this is my final point—"But the courts will pay more attention to the context and the period of the restriction and other material circumstances than they will to the public interest, and they will draw a narrow interpretation of what the public interest means". My Lords, I have not done a profound study of what the courts have said about the public interest, but I would refer your Lordships for a moment to a decision in the Queen's Bench Division last year in a case called Cartwright v. The Post Office. Here a lady named Mrs. Cartwright did not want the Post Office to put a telephone line across her land, which the Post Office wished to do
238
in order to take the telephone to two farms on the other side of her property. There were only two other farms involved. The law says that if there is a difference of this sort about whether a line shall go across property, the tribunal to which the difference is referred shall not give its consent to the placing of the line unless satisfied that the refusal or failure of the person to allow the line to go across his property is contrary to the public interest. So here we have a case in which the courts say what is the public interest in this context. Of course it is in this context, but it is an indication.
This case went to the county court judge. Your Lordships will remember that there were only two farmers concerned in Mrs. Cartwright's refusal. What the county court judge said was the public interest concerned in this case was—and I quote:
"I accept that it is in the public interest that many private difficulties be either prevented or speedily remedied. If a child is ill I think it is in the public interest that a doctor should he called as quickly as possible. We provide a free medical service for this purpose and it is in the public interest. On farms accidents sometimes happen with machinery, and although it is an individual who is hurt there appears to be a public interest that the individual should be treated and cured as effectively as possible. If a beast is sick it should be possible to summon the vet, speedily. If a hayrick catches fire it is in the public interest that the fire brigade should be called to put out the fire as quickly as possible. There is an agricultural advisory service and it is desirable that it should he possible to call for its services. In winter in this area"—
it was in North Staffordshire—
"severe weather is experienced and arrangements have to he made for taking children to and from school."
That is what the county court judge catalogued as the public interest involved in the taking of the telephone to these two farmers.
The learned judge of first instance said:
"I respectfully agree with that catalogue of measures, all of which seem to me to be in the public interest"—
and over Mrs. Cartwright's land the telephone line went. I am not criticising that decision. I am sure it was perfectly correct. But what it indicates, I would suggest to your Lordships, is that the courts can take as being in the public interest something of very small local concern indeed. They may be right to do so; but if that is the way it is going to

239
be interpreted we are going to have no severe interpretation of this Part of the 1925 Act as amended by this Bill; we are going to have a liberal interpretation by the courts which will in fact endorse everything that the local planning authority has said.
Of course, there will be test cases which go on appeal to the Court of Appeal, but if they follow that line the local planning authority will win, and indeed all that will be involved at the Lands Tribunal will be a second planning inquiry without any of the people who can set out from the planning authority's point of view the arguments in favour of this development. I think this goes too far. I have made a long speech, but I think it most important that we should preserve a proper balance in this matter. I am suggesting that we leave out the specific reference to the public interest and the specific reference to the development plan and the planning permissions, that we leave in the other material circumstances and allow the Lands Tribunal to take such account of them as they think fit. I beg to move.
4.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount would probably agree that as well as discussing Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 with No. 16 we might also take in Nos. 31, 33 and 34, which are really consequential. The noble Viscount is, I think, right in saying that this is the only remaining point in dispute between us.
The object of these Amendments is to limit the power of the Lands Tribunal to discharge or modify covenants to those covenants which are not of substantial value or advantage to the persons having the benefit of them. Such a limitation would not accord with the recommendations of the Law Commission which the clause seeks to implement. The desired effect of making land available for development, where it is in the interest of society that it should be developed and any loss resulting to those benefiting from restrictions on the land can be adequately made up for by monetary payments, would not be achieved.
At present the Lands Tribunal can discharge restrictions only where they impede the reasonable use of land for public or private purposes and secure
240
no practical benefits to other persons. As a result of the strict interpretation of the existing provisions of Section 84(1) restrictive covenants can in practice only be discharged where they are almost worthless. As the noble Viscount knows, this position has been strongly criticised for years and Proposition 9 of the Law Commission Report on Restrictive Covenants recommends that the Tribunal should be able to modify or discharge a restriction which is detrimental to the public interest by impeding the reasonable user of land, always provided that adequate monetary compensation can be awarded to those damnified by the modification or discharge. The new subsection (1A) gives effect to this recommendation by giving the Lands Tribunal the necessary powers: (i) where the restriction does not secure practical benefits of substantial value to the persons concerned and any loss they suffer can be made good by a monetary award; and (ii) where the restriction is contrary to the public interest and the loss can be compensated by a monetary award.
The noble Viscount would retain the first head and eliminate the second. He questions the whole policy of allowing planning considerations to override the interests of neighbouring landowners. But his Amendment would reduce the effect of Clause 25 to a very moderate enlargement of the powers of the Lands Tribunal. Where at present they can only act because the restriction confers no benefit, they would in future be able to act where the benefit conferred by the restriction is not substantial. They would also, as a result of the change made in Section 84(1)(a), be able to apply more generous tests in determining whether the restriction is one which impedes reasonable use and therefore ought to be lifted. But the predominant consideration would still only be the extent of the benefit conferred by it. The importance of the second ground lies in the ability to lift restrictions which operate contrary to the public interest even where the loss of the benefit of the restriction results in the substantial depreciation of the value of adjoining land. The Law Commission stressed (Note 3 to Proposition 9) that the Tribunal should be enabled
"to take a broader view whether the use of land is being unreasonably impeded",
and the Government accept this recommendation. Where only monetary loss

241
is involved, the public interest as evidenced by planning considerations should prevail.
Some safeguard against amenities being overridden may be found in the requirement that money must be adequate compensation. For instance, it may well be that the Tribunal or the courts will hold that money cannot compensate for a total loss of privacy or the blocking of a beautiful view which was the main attraction of a particular residence. But the task of holding the balance between the interest of the adjoining landowner in his amenities and the interest of society in the full use of land must be left to the Lands Tribunal, in so far as it is not already adequately carried out by planning authorities. It is not possible to find a form of words which could provide a precise line of demarcation.
The noble Viscount's Amendment would not achieve a balance, but prevent the public interest from being by itself any ground for the lifting of restrictions. If the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment, I am of course quite prepared to look at the authority to which he has been good enough to refer me and indeed to consider the whole question, because it is that always rather difficult question of just where you draw the line.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure that that is the right thing to do, and I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord's mind is not altogether closed upon this matter; it never is, but I am glad to have his reinforcement that this is so again on this occasion. I am far from certain that the Lands Tribunal are the proper body to decide on this sort of issue of the public interest as against private interest. I am far from certain that the Lands Tribunal will have before them the material upon which to make that decision; and indeed I think it will be greatly to the advantage of the applicant that he should not bring before the Lands Tribunal anybody who can be cross-examined on the public interest. I believe this to be a cardinal point. The matter will speak for itself from the planning permissions and the development plans, and there will be no opportunity for the Lands Tribunal or for those who object in any way to call in question whether or not this is in the public interest. I do not believe this is justiciable in this particular form.
242
It is another matter to decide whether the public interest ought to override, private rights. This is a widespread thing which happens in all sorts of realms in this country to-day. That is indeed what the whole system of compulsory purchase is for. I liken this to compulsory purchase, and I still think, particularly after hearing the speech of the noble and learned Lord, that this measure is slanted in that direction, and it is to that that I object. Local planning authorities have been given even wider powers than they had before to acquire land compulsorily—this is under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968—in order to see that it complies with the development plan. I should have thought those were the sort of occasions, when we have a Ministerial Inquiry and both sides can question what is in the public interest and whether this is correct in the terms of the development plan, when you can judge a matter which is basically quasi judicial.
In my humble opinion, the Lands Tribunal are not equipped, nor will they have the information or the opportunity, to make this choice. I would urge most earnestly upon the noble and learned Lord to think about this matter again. I do not wish to be over-restrictive in the relaxation that this Bill will bring about. I am not seeking to cramp any sort of widening of the extent to which the Lands Tribunal can modify or relax. That is not my intention at all. I am simply saying that we are going into realms which are normally dealt with by Ministerial action and not by the courts, and we should not do so. I should be very glad to have an opportunity to consider this further with the noble and learned Lord, and indeed with others who have helped me very much in seeking to make up my mind on this. I will, however, promise the House that I will return to this at the next stage, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 15, line 30, after ("value") insert ("or advantage")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment it may be convenient to consider No. 32 as well. These Amendments ensure that the Lands

243
Tribunal will not be able to discharge or modify a restrictive covenant which confers "substantial advantages" on persons enjoying the benefit of the restriction unless continuation of the restriction is contrary to the public interest. Subsection (1A)(a) enables the Lands Tribunal to discharge or modify a restriction impeding some reasonable user if the restriction
"does not secure to persons entitled to the benefit of it any practical benefits of substantial value to them".
The benefits of substantial value might be interpreted as meaning only benefit which enhance the monetary value of other land. On that interpretation the Lands Tribunal could discharge a restriction which protects important amenities of neighbouring land (for example, privacy, a fine view, freedom from noise or disturbance) where these amenities are not reflected in the value of the land. This situation arises not infrequently where land currently used for residential purposes has a far higher value for industrial or other development for which the amenities would be irrelevant. By adding the words "or advantage" after "value" the Amendment makes it plain that "value" includes amenity value or other non-monetary value. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that this Amendment has both value and advantage and I support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("with") and insert ("in view of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment goes Amendment No. 35. This is a drafting Amendment to meet a criticism made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, during the Committee stage of the Bill. Subsection (1C) declares that the Lands Tribunal's power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants includes a power
"to add such further provisions restricting the user of or the building on the land affected as appear to the Lands Tribunal to be reasonable with the relaxation of the existing provisions …"
244
The Amendment substitutes the phrase "in view of" for the word "with". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In section 84(1) there shall be omitted the words ' (subject or not to the payment by the applicant of compensation to any person suffering loss in consequence of the order) ' and the proviso, and after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words and an order discharging or modifying a restriction under this subsection may direct the applicant to pay to any person entitled to the benefit of the restriction such sum by way of consideration as the Tribunal may think it just to award under one, but not both, of the following heads, that is to say, either—

(i) a sum to make up for any loss or disadvantage suffered by that person in consequence of the discharge or modification; or

(ii) a sum to make up for any effect which the restriction had, at the time when it was imposed, in reducing the consideration then received for the land affected by it.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment, I think, can be considered Amendments Nos. 25 and 29. These Amendments delete from Section 84 all references to the payment of compensation for the discharge or modification of restrictions and replace them by adding at the end of Section 84(1) a concluding passage dealing comprehensively with monetary awards. As a result the Lands Tribunal will in future be able, when discharging or modifying restrictions, to order payment of sums of money which will make up for either (i), any loss or disadvantage suffered by those entitled to the benefit of the restriction; or (ii), any reduction in the purchase price received by the vendor of the burdened land at the time when the restriction was imposed, which is due to the restriction.
The existing provisions on compensation are unsatisfactory in many ways. Hitherto, that has mattered little because the powers of the Tribunal have been so narrowly interpreted that compensation was hardly ever awarded. In future the availability of compensation will be a major factor in determining whether a restriction can be discharged or modified under subsection (1A) and a clear statement of the power to make monetary

245
awards and the measure to be applied is of corresponding importance. Accordingly, the Amendment deletes the words in the second parenthesis in Section 84(1) (which provide for the payment of compensation to any person suffering loss in consequence of the Tribunal's order) and the proviso to it. The proviso, which is obscurely worded, lays down three criteria:

(i) compensation for the discharge or modification of a restrictive covenant is not to be payable simply because the owner of the burdened land has obtained an advantage thereby;

(ii) the compensation payable to the owner of the benefited land is not to exceed the loss which he suffers;

(iii) notwithstanding (i) and (ii), compensation can be paid in respect of any reduction in the price received in the past for the burdened land, which was due to the imposition of the restriction.

Of these criteria, (i) and (ii) are otiose because it is the nature of compensation that it is payable in respect of loss suffered (rather than gain made by others) and that it is enough and not more than enough to make good that loss. The substance of (iii) is reproduced in the Amendment.
The new passage introduced by the Amendment confers a discretion on the Tribunal to direct the payment of sums by way of consideration for the discharge or modification of a restriction and goes on to state how the sums are to be quantified. The Tribunal are given discretion to make such orders as they think just, and the award is termed "consideration" and not "compensation" to take account of the fact that it may cover not only actual financial loss but also disadvantage, like loss of amenities, which cannot be accurately quantified. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that I, too, was not satisfied with the compensation provisions and have put down an Amendment on this point. But I have no doubt that the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord is better than mine and I hope that it will be accepted. It is such a pity, surely, that at last we have had an explanation of the proviso to Section 84(1), but at a time
246
when it will be useless in future to discover what it means. I have consulted a number of people, and the obscurity of the proviso is such that few have been able to give me any real indication of the scope of its interpretation. I shudder to think what would happen. Whether the clause remains as it is now or is amended in the way I want does not matter; in either case, a clear provision for the method of assessing compensation in the circumstances in which it is to be paid is highly desirable. I think that it is a great improvement indeed to this Bill that we should have this Amendment making it clear, and I earnestly support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("appearing to be") and insert ("being").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a small point, and it arises in the new subsection (3A) which is being added to Section 84 of the 1925 Act. The subject matter of the new subsection (3A) is to set on foot the necessary provisions by which the Lands Tribunal can sort out who is to take part in the hearing on a question of whether a covenant is to be modified or revoked altogether; and it underlie; the whole of this subsection that there will be rules, both in the Lands Tribunal and, I think, in the High Court, dealing with this matter. I simply want to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, the Lands Tribunal are going to give directions as to the people who are or are not to be admitted to oppose the application. The criterion upon which the Tribunal will give directions, as I understand it, is that the people in question appear—or, I suppose, alternatively, do not appear—to be entitled to the benefit of the restriction. It may be that this will all come out quite clearly in the rules. But if, as I hope, there is not going to be a tremendous amount of argument, at the substantive hearing of the application to modify or revoke, about who is or is not entitled to the benefit at that stage (the idea being, believe, that all of this should have been sorted out beforehand) I believe that: it should have been established who is entitled to the benefit and

247
who is not. Therefore, the directions which the Lands Tribunal give as to those who are to be allowed to oppose the application itself ought to be based upon certainty, in so far as that can be achieved in law, as to the benefit that the people who are allowed to come may possess.
There are preliminary methods of finding out who those people are. If there is a dispute at the initial stage, when this matter is being discussed by the Lands Tribunal, it can be adjourned and go to the Chancery Division; the rules provide for that, and the Bill provides for that. But once that has been done will it be perfectly certain under the rules that the people who are there to oppose the application will be there in fact to do that, and not to argue any more about whether or not they are entitled to the benefit of the covenant. I ask this because if they return to that matter simply because it appears to the Lands Tribunal that they are entitled to the benefit, then I think we shall have interminable arguments and a great deal of time wasted. It is to raise that point that I move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a small point on which we are not, I am afraid, altogether agreed. The new subsection (3A) introduced by the Bill requires the Lands Tribunal to give any necessary directions as to persons who are or who are not to be admitted to oppose the application because they appear to be entitled, or not entitled, to the benefit of the restriction. The Amendment would alter this to provide for the admission of persons because they are entitled to the benefit of the restriction. The implication of the altered wording is that the Lands Tribunal would decide whether or not a person is in law entitled to the benefit of a restrictive covenant. This is wrong, because the determination of questions of
law is reserved for the court by Section 84(2). The new subsection (3A), which is based on proposition 11 of the Law Commission's Report, is not intended to alter this position. In order to determine who are the proper parties to be heard in opposition to the application the Tribunal must take a prima facie view on questions of law as to the validity or enforceability of the restrictive covenant, or the annexation of
248
the benefit to particular land. They will do so when giving a ruling as to the persons who appear to be entitled to enforce the benefit of the restriction, and if this ruling is not accepted the legal issue is, under the subsection, to be referred to the court. The Amendment would blur the intention which lies behind the subsection, and therefore I am afraid that we are unable to accept it, though I shall be happy to discuss the point further with the noble and learned Viscount at any time.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in fact I do not think there is any difference between the noble and learned Lord and myself, because I entirely agree that the substantive issue of who is or who is not entitled to the benefit should go to the Chancery Division under Section 84(2), and that is what the whole provision is intended to ensure. The noble and learned Lord will, however, take my point that it is really essential that this matter should be cleared up before the substantive hearing. I am talking only about the content of the rules, which will be the way in which the method of giving directions is spelt out. It is in the rules that we shall get this straight; it is in the rules that it will be made plain that this is, as it
were, an interlocutory issue which must be decided before the substantive
application comes on. It is simply to make sure that this point is brought home to the noble and learned Lord (I am sure he is well aware of it already) that I put down this Amendment. I entirely accept his explanation. So long as the rules ensure that it is done in this way I am quite happy about it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 16, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) In section 84(11) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added the words 'or of section 19 or 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949'.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 is also relevant to this Amendment. The purpose of the Amendments is merely to bring up to date the references to restrictions imposed for civil aviation purposes in Section 84(11) of the Law of Property

249
Act 1925. These restrictions are exempted from the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal. Section 84(11), as reproduced in Schedule 2, refers to the Air Navigation Act 1920 which has now been repealed and largely re-enacted by the Civil Aviation Acts 1949 to 1968. As I said during the Committee stage, reference to the 1920 Act remains a necessary one because many restrictions were imposed under provisions of the later Acts, which substantially re-enact powers conferred in 1920 as a result of perpetuation and saving provisions found in the later Acts. ft is, however, desirable to refer to the present-day empowering provisions which have succeeded those of the 1920 Act, where they can be identified, and the Amendment does so.
The Amendments have the further advantage that they dispel any doubt whether some agreements for civil aviation purposes restrictive of the user of land which are authorised under later legislation are covered by the reference, in paragraph (b) of subsection (11), to the Air Navigation Act 1920. Section 19(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 allows a local authority to impose restrictive covenants when selling land around an aerodrome, and under Section 23 of the Board of Trade are enabled to acquire the benefit of restrictive covenants in connection with civil aviation purposes. The history of consolidation of the Civil Aviation Acts is complicated, and it may be that some of the powers referred to in sections 19 and 23 do not derive directly from the Air Navigation Act 1920. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Law of Property Act 1925: Section 84 reprinted with Amendments]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I intervene to say that all the noble and learned Lord's remaining Amendments are purely consequential. I shall not move any of mine. It may be that the noble and learned Lord could take the remaining Amendments formally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I gladly avail myself of that offer, and if I may put together the remaining Amendments in my name I shall do so if that is not inconvenient to noble Lords May I move Amend-
250
ments Nos. 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35 and 38 en bloc? As no noble Lord objects, I need not put them all severally from the Woolsack. I move that those Amendments be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 26, leave out from ("restriction") to ("on") in line 28.
Line 32, after ("or") insert ("(aa)").
Page 21, leave out lines 1 to 10, and insert ("and an order discharging or modifying a restriction under this subsection may direct the applicant to pay to any person entitled to the benefit of the restriction such sum by way of consideration as the Tribunal may think it just to award under one, but not both, of the Following heads, that is to say, either—

(i) a sum to make up for any loss or disadvantage suffered by that person in consequence of the discharge or modification; or

(ii) a sum to make up for any effect which the restriction had, at the time when it was imposed, in reducing the consideration then received for the land affected by it.")

Page 21, Line 11, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(aa)").
Page 21, Line 16, after ("value") insert ("or advantage").
Page 21, Line 32, leave out ("with") and insert ("in view of").
Page 23, line 8, at end insert ("or of section 19 or 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (RECURRING NUISANCES) BILL
5.7 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is a very brief and politically non-controversial Bill of four clauses which was moved in the other place by my honourable and gallant friend the Member for Carshalton, and it passed through its Second Reading in the almost record time, I think, of 15 minutes flat.
The purpose of the Bill is to elaborate upon and indeed improve the much weightier 1936 Public Health Act. Under the 1936 Public Health Act local authorities were given powers to deal with nuisances at the time of the nuisances being committed. The purpose of this Bill is to deal with nuisances which recur from time to time. We can all think of some of them. Of course, the Noise

251
Abatement Act 1956, and the Clean Air Act, have largely disposed of the problems of smoke and of noise, but there is the problem of the man who consistently mows his law on a Sunday afternoon with a mower which makes far too much noise and which shatters the peace of the neighbourhood or, even worse, if he cuts it at nine o'clock at night. Under the 1936 Act he could be taken to task by the local authority if he was caught doing it at the time, but under this Bill if the local authority find that he is committing this inconvenience at frequently recurring intervals he can be dealt with accordingly.
The two main aspects of this Bill are concerned with smell and obstruction. We have an increasing number of rubbish tips, some of them quite unauthorised, littering our countryside. These give off very offensive smells and every now and again things are added to them. Under this Bill the local authority has powers to make those responsible stop this practice. There is no provision for increased penalties other than those under the 1936 Act, but those nuisances which occur regularly can be stopped. The Bill does not apply to Scotland, because Scotland was go-ahead enough to put this legislation in force some while ago. But following the 1963 Wilson Committee on Noise, action will at last be taken in England and Wales. This is an age of do-it-yourself, and since hiring labour is expensive there are to-day more and more machines on the market. The Bill is not a kind of spoil-sport Bill, to prevent people tidying up their gardens and so on, but there are those who do not do it very effectively and, perhaps, at great inconvenience to their neighbours and others.
To deal briefly with the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 empowers a local authority to serve a notice prohibiting the recurrence of a nuisance, and subsection (3) gives power to serve the notice whether or not the nuisance is in force at the time. This is really the main force of the Bill. As I said earlier, it can deal with, say, a lorry which unloads rubbish or material and blocks an entrance to a thoroughfare, causes an offensive smell or infringes safety regulations. Clause 2 gives power to a local authority to complain to a justice of the peace in cases where there is non-compliance with the
252
prohibition notice. Clause 3 enables a private person to make a direct complaint to a magistrate.
We are living in days when our countryside is gradually being built on. We are losing much of our valuable farmland and many of our beauty spots. This is all part of progress and in many cases we cannot complain, since we cannot have it all ways. But we can, at least, prevent some of the nuisances which this Bill seeks to rectify and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Auckland.)
5.14 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like to welcome this small but valuable Bill, and to congratulate my noble friend on having introduced it in your Lordships' House. I feel a certain sense of guilt, because now that it has emerged that the public health law of England has for long lagged behind the public health law of Scotland in this matter, I ask myself why I did not rectify that omission when I introduced a Public Health Bill into Parliament in the year 1961. It was an omnibus Bill which dealt with a very wide variety of subjects, yet I regret to say that I missed this one.
This Bill seems to me to have another value over and above those which my noble friend has mentioned, in that it should save a good deal of local government time. One of my experiences in local government was that local government officers were liable to have to waste a good deal of time when they were trying, ineffectually, to serve a notice on somebody who was doing something which he should not. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be familiar with the way this is liable to happen in the case of housing nuisances. There is no doubt that in the past, when local authorities have been seeking to get a nuisance abated, their officers have had to waste time, as the service of an abatement notice is not valid and effective unless it is served at a moment when the nuisance exists. These recurrent nuisances may be occasional and intermittent, but if they only happen, for example, on a Saturday evening that may be just the time when it is hardest for

253
the local government officer to serve a notice.
I am slightly puzzled by some words in subsection (1) of Clause 1 which say:
"Where a local authority are satisfied that a statutory nuisance has occured on any premises and is likely to recur on the same premises …"
I confess that I do not see how a local authority can satisfy itself that a nuisance is likely to recur unless it has already occurred at least twice. However, these words do not suggest that it need have occurred more than once before the local authority reaches its decison. I can well understand, of course, that if it is a matter of noise caused by machinery, the noise is likely to recur whenever the machinery is operated. But it seems to me quite clear that when it is a nuisance such as the dumping of rubbish, a local authority could not satisfy itself that the nuisance was likely to recur unless it had already occurred several times. The wording of the Bill may be quite satisfactory there, and experience may say that it is. But it seemed to me to he a point worth raising, and I think it is right to raise it, because one must think of the protection of the individual as well as the protection of the general public.
I wish the local authorities to have these new powers, but nobody would wish them to use these new powers extravagantly or carelessly. It seems to me essential that a local authority should have cause to be fully satisfied that there is a likelihood of recurrence before it sets on foot the procedure laid down in the Bill. That is all I have to say, and the fact that this Bill has passed quickly and non-controversially through another place gives one great hope that it may before long reach the Statute Book.
5.19 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, on introducing this Bill. As has been explained, its purpose is to fill one of the gaps in the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 relating to statutory nuisance. Under the 1936 Act, an abatement notice can be served only in respect of an existing nuisance. If the nuisance has ceased, a notice cannot be served unless the nuisance recurs. Thus, for example, where a hole in the roof has been badly
254
patched a local authority can take no effective action until some more rain, or something similar, demonstrates that the patch is ineffective. The Bill empowers local authorities to serve nuisance notices where a nuisance has occurred arid is likely to recur, even though at the time the notice is served the nuisance is not in existence, and even though a previous notice may not have been served. I would not claim that this measure is one of first importance; but it is a useful one. I am sure that the local authorities will find it useful; and it has the blessing of the Association of Municipal Corporations. In those circumstances, and as the Bill comes to us without having caused any difficulty at all in another place, I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading
5.21 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the local authorities will welcome this Bill and feel indebted to my noble friend for having brought it forward. As the noble Lord has just said, it is aimed at stopping up one of the gaps in the existing public health legislation, and I hope that it will do so effectively. I do not think that any great difficulty is likely to arise in the construction of the words "likely to recur". I do not think the local authorities will have much difficulty in determining whether or not a nuisance is likely to recur. Take the case that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has mentioned, of a defective roof on which repairs are
carried out by the landlord, but where the repairs are not really adequate to ensure that the nuisance will not recur. I do not think the local authority would have much difficulty in determining that in a case of that sort the nuisance was likely to recur. Whether that is so or not, I am sure that this is a useful and valuable Bill. Perhaps it can be improved in Committee. It will, I am sure, be welcomed by the local authorities.
5.23 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is clear that the Bill meets with a general welcome. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, on introducing it. On the detailed point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about Clause 1(1), we can go into that in Committee, unless I can allay his doubts about it at the moment. But it seems to me that it is

255
all right, because, supposing that a nuisance is committed once and the local authority then serves its abatement notice, that is the end of the matter unless the citizen makes the nuisance again, in which case he is contravening the abatement notice and the local authority may take him to court. So it seems to me that the important thing is what happens after the abatement notice is served, and not what precise grounds the local authority may have for thinking that the nuisance is going to recur before they serve the abatement notice.
There is little for the Government to add. The whole point of the Bill is to prevent not only inconvenience but a certain kind of cat-and-mouse game which is played in some parts of the country by those who understand the present loophole only too well. They start making their noise, or their smell, or whatever it may be, in the full knowledge that after the council has resolved to serve a notice on them it will be open to them to stop making it, so that by the time the officer comes round with his notice there is nothing to be done. This Bill will put an end to that cat-and-mouse nonsense, and will, in my personal experience, bring relief to a great many people who are suffering nuisance and ought not to be.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House for the welcome and help which they have given to this small Bill. I hope that it will pass into law very quickly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NURSES' PAY AND CONDITIONS
5.25 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to improve the conditions under which nurses work.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the present time there are in the country about 420,000 State-registered nurses, 52,000 student nurses, 104,000 State-enrolled nurses, 18,000 pupil nurses and 46,000 auxiliary nurses or nursing auxiliaries, making a total of 640,000 people. I
256
am sorry to have to give these figures: I shall not give your Lordships any more. The National Health Service is at the present time the biggest of our national industries, and one can see from the figures I have quoted that the nurses are really the largest category of staff in the National Health Service. One could really say that they are carrying the Service—to a very great extent, anyhow. There are quite a number of people who do not really know what nurses do, or what their work is. The nurses are the people who make possible the work of all sorts and kinds in hospital. One is told about the more spectacular work now done by surgeons and physicians in the case of transplants, cardiac resuscitation, intensive-care units and all that spectacular work which has cropped up in the last ten or fifteen years. I think I am right in saying that if it was not for the skilled nurses working with these surgeons, 75 per cent. of their work would be labour in vain.
So I come to the first part of the Question I want to ask the Government. Is it right that the terms of pay under which the nurses work should be settled by
the Whitley Council machinery? The Whitley Councils, as your Lordships will remember, were established in 1916, I think it was, by a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. H. Whitley, who was a Liberal Member of Parliament, which recommended the formation of joint industrial councils. These were to deal with pay and other disputes between the employer and the employed During the war, the nurses' pay was regulated by a committee called the Rushcliffe Committee, which was a temporary committee in that I do not think it was meant to be there for a very long time. But in 1948, when the National Health Service came into being, it was decided that the Whitley Council was the right procedure for the nurses' pay.
The management side consists of representatives of quite a number of bodies, of which I will quote just a few: the Ministry of Health, the regional hospital boards, the hospital management committees, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and so on. But behind these is the Treasury. Therefore, the employers' side has not really got the same power to negotiate as that which you find if you are dealing with

257
a purely industrial set-up, where the staff side and the management side can talk together directly.
In that case, the management side has full control over what it decides to do, whereas in this particular case, I think I am right in saying, the Treasury is the overriding factor. I was a member of the staff side at one or two Whitley Council meetings, when I was working with the occupational therapists. I am bound to say that I found appearing before the Whitley Council was a most disheartening, discouraging and disappointing affair. I admit that they were extremely nice; they could not have been kinder. But you knew from the start that nothing was going to happen; and when you came away nothing did happen.
The doctors have been rather cleverer than some people, because about ten or twelve years ago a Committee was appointed, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, which recommended that there should be a Review Body, with an independent Chairman and six members—not medical people at all—who should make recommendations on the pay of doctors working in the National Health Service, both those working as general practitioners and those working in the hospital service. The doctors working under the local authorities, I believe I am right in thinking, came under the Whitley machinery which controls local authority matters. At any rate, the recommendation of the Pilkington Committee mean that, in the case of doctors, we have this Review Body, which has reported eight or nine times and, broadly speaking, has given a great deal of satisfaction to the profession.
The question I want to put is this. Why should there not be a similar review body dealing with the nurses' pay?—because the nurses have now become a professional body of people, as doctors are professional people. Nursing is no longer a calling, as it once was, when nurses would do anything for nothing: that cannot be expected to happen now. Nurses have become a professional body of people. The young nurses are now recognised as students who require a well-designed curriculum, expert instruction and guidance in the training schools and in the practical work they do in the
258
wards. But one must realise that in their instruction in the wards, in their practical work, both as qualified nurses and as student nurses, they represent the main labour force working in the wards. So, although it is true to say that the younger—some of them men—nurses are students, they are in fact doing a great deal more than students do, because they carry a very considerable amount of responsibility.
Moreover, supposing they were not there working in the wards, one does not quite know what would become of the wards. More people would have to he employed from somewhere. Nurses are called upon to supply a full 24-hour nursing service in the hospitals, and the people who are recruited as student nurses are required to have considerable educational qualifications. For the normal entry, they must have two "0" levels, of which one has to be in English; for the teaching hospitals, they try to get them with five "O" levels, to correspond with the radiographers and physiotherapists and members of the other professional bodies working in the hospital.
I will come now briefly to the question of nurses' pay. A student nurse, gets £395 a year, gross. From that she has to pay superannuation, national insurance, income tax and quite a large sum for board-and-lodging; so that the amount she finally takes home is something in the neighbourhood of £240 a year. I may have my figures wrong, but I do not think so. These scales rather correspond to those of the other members of the nursing profession. Take a ward sister, who carries a great deal of responsibility and does a great deal of real hard work: her maximum salary is £1,300 a year. I think I have that right, but I am always prepared to he checked on the figures. What is said in excuse is that if nurses do not want to live out, in a great many cases they have accommodation provided for them. That is true. But take the case of a student nurse: she has only a bedroom and a communal living room. Perhaps for a student that is not too had. A staff nurse, or a qualified nurse, may get a bed-sitting room and a communal room, too; but this does not compare well with people of the same intellectual background, working in private, who can have a little apartment for themselves and do

259
not have to lead this communal life which some people do not find very attractive.
Therefore, my Lords, as part of my Question I should like to ask whether nurses cannot in some way be paid more. Let me give one or two more figures. At the present time a senior nurse cannot earn more than £2,950 a year. That is the maximum. I saw an advertisement on May 1 in the Nursing Times for a senior nursing officer who was to be paid from £2,530 up to £2,950. She was to have full charge, from the nursing point of view, of 4,500 beds, of which 1,300 were for mental patients. I will not go into the details of the beds; but there were 4,500 beds in 17 hospitals. She was going to have to accept responsibility for the accident ward, the out-patients department, training for both (State-registered and State-enrolled nurses—and all for the figure I have quoted.
Compare that with the salaries which the nationalised industries pay their Chairmen. I do not suggest that the nurses wish to be paid as much; but the Chairman of B.E.A. gets £11,000 a year; the Chairman of B.O.A.C., £15,000, and so on. Even some of the minor jobs, like that of an area gas manager, carry a salary of from £7,000 to £9,500. The only really tiny one is the North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, where the Chairman is paid merely £4,750—it seems unfair on the North of Scotland. The Royal College of Nursing do not make very big claims. They suggest only that the top salary might be increased from £2,950 to £4,500 a year. These are the two questions that I want to put to the noble Baroness, and I shall be grateful for any reply that the Government may give me.
5.38 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, that nurses are news to-day is clearly apparent. The traditional picture of a quiet, gentle, reassuring, comfort-giving figure in an attractive uniform is in some cases being superseded by a more militant and aggressive individual demanding her rights and perhaps sometimes forgetting her duties—or so the Press, television and radio would have us believe. Although this new militancy is by no means universal
260
and the methods adopted are not acceptable to the vast majority of the profession, there is a general feeling of unrest, frustration and unhappiness that could develop into a permanent malaise unless something is done to arrest its growth and cure its cause.
What are the causes of the troubles? In a short debate such as we are having to-day it is impossible to attempt to cover the whole canvas. I shall confine what I have to say to looking at a few of the problems to be found facing both the giving and the receiving ends of the service. It has been said categorically, over and over again, that the salary structure is inadequate; that at the top it does not give sufficient reward for added responsibility or sufficient incentive to encourage trained and experienced nurses to seek promotion. The Salmon Committee on senior nursing staff structure advocated the creation of a new top post.
On this information being made available there was excitement in the nursing profession that at last they were going to be paid for what they were doing in terms of responsibility and years of experience—a new top post, that of Chief Nursing Officer. The training and experience for such a post. and the responsibilities it carries, are both challenging and impressive; and as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has already told your Lordships, the salary, the peak salary, is £2,950. The figure of £2,950 is not an arbitrary one; it was suggested by the Prices and Incomes Board in its Report on Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service. The Board did not even have the grace to say "Grade 10 nurses—the top grade—are worth £5.000, but we cannot afford to pay it." It is this that has helped to cause some of the bitterness among nurses at the moment.
My Lords, we are living in an age when technical developments and organisational changes in the profession call out for mature, experienced nurses of the highest calibre with management skill. That goes for all the new techniques which are necessary; the exciting new equipment and the use of new drugs, too. The student nurse must be conscientiously taught, and the facilities for teaching and learning must be improved if full advantage is to be taken of the advances

261
in medical and surgical skills that are being made all the time.
The second grade that I should like to consider is that of ward sisters in general hospitals. Ward sisters are highly skilled personnel. They carry heavy responsibilities for the bedside care of the patient, for the administration of their ward, and for teaching. Many nurses would prefer to stay on this clinical side of the service for the whole of their professional lives, in close contact with patients, but they are deterred from doing so by the low level of salary which can be obtained even after many years of service. As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has told us—and I do not hesitate to repeat this figure because I think that this is what we want people to realise—the salary scale of a ward sister is £970 a year, rising to the giddy height of £1,315, with nine increments before the maximum point is reached. Who would be a ward sister with only those mouldy "financial carrots" dangling in front of her?
The third grade is that of student nurse. The student nurses provide the main labour force for the hospital, and he or she is paid a training allowance which is then treated as a wage and is subject to deductions, superannuation, National Insurance and, with rare exceptions, income tax also. Whatever else your Lordships may not know about the pay and conditions of the nursing profession, I am pretty certain that you are all aware of the introduction of the "pay as you eat" scheme. The principle of "pay as you eat" is not universally unpopular, but the inadequacy of the training allowance to cover the principle in practice is the cause of the trouble. All innovations tend to cause rumpuses, but, given time and good sense, and enough cash, this scheme should settle down, after initial teething troubles—one of which, it seems, is that there is not enough food for the teeth to chew.
Some hospitals appear to have been more skilful than others in the introduction of the scheme. The standard should be universal and steps must be taken to see that it is so. Nurses are doing heavy physical work and they are always hungry. Forty years ago, when I was a probationer-nurse, when we came off duty at half-past nine in the morning, having been on the run since 7 a.m.—and the same thing holds good to-day—we fell
262
upon the remains of the supper of the night before; beefsteak and kidney pie, rice pudding, coffee, rolls, anything we could lay our hands on. We were
ravenous. And in spite of the vital statistics which are always much in the news, I do not believe that it is very different for the nurses in training to-day. I believe that they get just as hungry as we were.
What I can never understand is why, when a pay award is made to the nursing profession, more money is promptly required for board-and-keep emoluments, and the amount is backdated to the day of the rise. Surely, if food and domestic help charges have risen the emoluments should have been increased before the pay award and not appear to be part of a package deal when the cash is eventually being handed out. Most of the student nurses to-day are expected to house, clothe and feed themselves an a training allowance of less than £8 a week; and that, as we all know, just cannot be done with any margin for enjoyment or pleasure. I will not bore your Lordships with the training allowance that I had 40 years ago.
These nurses are listed as student nurses on the establishment. May I suggest that they are neither the one nor the other? At present they are largely hybrid, and so they get the worst of both worlds. If the nursing care of the future is to be equal to the advances in medical knowledge and equipment which have been made in recent years, and which are being made all the time, the student nurse must be regarded as a student and given all the necessary facilities to enable her to be one. Never before in nursing history has the position of the tutor been of greater importance. There is so much to teach and the average ratio of tutors to students is 1 to 40. The student is mostly learning for only a quarter of the time, and she spends only about one-sixth of it in the School of Nursing. For the rest of her time she is helping to run the hospital, with Saturday and Sunday duty and no overtime, and a considerable amount of lonely, often frightening, night duty.
The theory is that a nurse receives teaching in the wards, but with the general shortage of trained staff, she is often on duty for eight hours without receiving any instruction at all. Nurses have always

263
been in evidence, apparently in sufficient numbers to staff our hospitals and to enable the domiciliary services to be maintained. We, the public, my Lords, are aware of them when we are ill and need their skills; when we are on the receiving end. But when we are well and away from their ministrations, then all too easily we tend to forget them. The time has come when we are being jolted into consciousness that the prevalent disease of unrest is beginning to show signs of activity and that the less stable and responsible members of a great profession may try to organise rebellion against conditions of service and pay.
I hope, my Lords, that Her Majesty's Government will rise to the occasion; that they will set up the necessary machinery forthwith to seek out some viable solution; and the first blow that I should like to see them strike is against the "sacred cow" of Whitley, the most unrealistic and unimaginative body ever set up as a guardian of fair play. Money, or the lack of it, is the crux of the matter. I think that the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, deserves all our sympathy. She has a gigantic task on her hands with the Treasury as the "giant", and although her name is not "Jack" and she belongs to the opposite sex, I believe that she will have a pretty good shot at climbing the beanstalk of knotted sheets and at running off with the goose that lays the golden egg, so essential to the solution or easing of the infinite number of problems that await her in the Department for which she is now answerable. I wish her all the luck in the world.
5.47 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I find it difficult to say anything after what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, has said. She, of course, speaks with the knowledge and the passion of a woman who has known the life of a nurse, and has realised that it is not all nobility; that there are hard times and frightening times—I am glad that she used the word "frightening"—in relation to the work done by a young nurse who may be left alone in a ward all night, sometimes for eight hours, while the doctors go home to their comfortable beds. When the doctors leave the wards and go home, they say to themselves,
264
"Thank God I am not that little nurse!". Whatever happens during the night; if for the first time in her experience a patient dies, the young girl is left to face death and do all that is necessary. It may be an elderly man or woman who dies. This is all horrific but, unfortunately, so few people consider these things after they have left the hospital well and happy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, talked about, "these gentle women". It reminded me of what they said about the suffragettes; how people raised their eyes and said, "How is it that these gently-nurtured women can even consider violence, and behave in this unladylike way?" If you call something that a woman does "unladylike", that is enough—she will immediately do anything and be completely passive. And so we have a rather interesting parallel, because these women have not suddenly revolted, they have not done something which is entirely out of character. In a way they are rather like the suffragettes. Before the suffragettes revolted, for thirty or forty years they had come to Parliament and asked, in a gentle, ladylike way, to have the franchise. These women who are now in revolt have used every other means to get their grievances remedied. They have behaved in a gentle way. They have gone to their sisters and matrons and Members of Parliament, written hundreds and thousands of letters over the years, describing the conditions, which the noble Baroness has described, and asked, "Is this fair? Can you do nothing to help us?" And they have been ignored.
I feel that the discussions going on at this moment between the Trades Union Congress and the Government are relevant to this matter. These discussions are concerned with the use of the strike weapon. The T.U.C. says that in no circumstances must the strike weapon be taken from them, because the withdrawal of labour is the only weapon that the workers have, if the terms of their employment are not good. The Government say that all they are doing is to ask for a cooling-off period; that the trade unions shall wait for a fortnight, but they realise that it is absolutely legitimate for a worker if his terms of service are bad, to withdraw his labour.
The nurses we are discussing to-day are some of the finest workers in the country.

265
The whole House will agree with that. But while legally they can withdraw their labour, they have no moral right to do so. These girls are aware of that. They realise that morally they must stick it out, irrespective of the hours, the uncongenial conditions of work and the miserable pay. So they and the doctors are the only workers in the country—and their services can really never be estimated in pounds, shillings and pence, however much we give them—who cannot say, "if you do not treat us fairly, we shall withdraw our labour." Now they are making a protest, a violent protest, and all the nice people hold up their hands, shocked, and say, "Not the nurses, surely?" Yes, my Lords. The nurses have had enough of being ignored and exploited.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, gave figures of an 84-hour fortnight, and sometimes the nurses can work for a stretch of 77 hours of night work—heavy, physically arduous work. Girls of 18 and 19 have to heave up men of 15 stone, rub their backs so that they will not get bed sores and spend all night running in and out with bed pans and cleaning them—doing things that the relatives of these people would never do. That is why so many people are in hospital, because the jobs these little girls are asked to do will not be done—and quite understandably—by the relatives.
Although I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, that if they were paid enough money they could pay for their meals, I feel strongly that a responsible committee should not have decided that a still growing girl—people do not stop growing until they are about 22 or 23—whose strength can be overtaxed, physically and mentally, should not be ensured regular and adequate meals. This committee, for the first time in the
history of nursing, have literally washed their hands of their full responsibility for the feeding of their charges. And when I say "charges", surely that is the right term; they have not washed their hands of the disciplining of these girls. I am told that the nurses have to get in at a certain time. They are the only workers in the country who have to do so. Apparently discipline is still exercised by people who seem to enjoy that kind of power, although they will still leave the same girls alone all night in a ward.
266
In my opinion, this policy is absolutely opposed to the contemporary approach to the feeding of young people. Even business firms recognise that young typists and office workers, if they are to get the best work from them—all right, it is enlightened self-interest, if you like—must be properly fed, and that it pays them to give their workers subsidised luncheon vouchers, vouchers which can only be used for food. So there is no question of these firms not recognising that the feeding of these girls is important. Most of these office girls live at home. Their mothers give them a good breakfast, they get a good dinner at night—arid the firm gives them a subsidised lunch. That is what is being done in business, but not in our hospitals.
These nurses, who are dedicated to their vocation, are easily exploited and the committee has washed its hands of the full charge of their feeding. I believe that this is a fundamentally wrong policy. It is in the interests of the patients, as well as of the nurses, for these girls to be adequately fed. To put up with their kind of life, they must not feel irritable for one moment. They have always to be in a good temper, always to be placid, always to be patient with a patient, who may not be the nicest kind of individual. If they are not adequately fed, it is easy for them to change from kind nurses with good bedside manners into very irritable individuals.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, talked about the physically arduous work that nurses do. I am told that it is estimated that these girls walk ten miles a day. It is interesting to know that those in authority have recognised this. The doctors have said that these girls are doing such arduous work that their feet must be looked after,
otherwise they may become flat-footed. So a regulation has been made that a special kind of shoe must be worn. This is significant, because it indicates the strain under which these girls work. Nevertheless, this special kind of shoe, which costs £4, has to be paid for by the nurse, although it is designed to help the work of the hospital.
I feel that this policy, which is fundamentally wrong, will lead to the poorest nurses, who are not subsidised by their parents, being unfairly treated. Let us

267
recognise that there are two kinds of nurses. There is a waiting list of nurses wanting to go to St. Thomas's, across the river, where they are known as "Nightingales", because of course it is Florence Nightingale's old teaching hospital. There is a certain cachet—snob value, if you like—about going to St. Thomas's. Often these girls are the children of wealthier parents. It is fairly easy for some parents to subsidise their girls in hospital by sending them big parcels of food, and so on. I say that the policy of looking after these girls should have been planned in the light of the need of the poorest girl in the country.
I want to talk about the student nurse. As I said the other week, the word "student" is an absolute misnomer: it has no meaning whatever when applied to these girls. They are full-time hard workers at a physically arduous job. If they are students, then they should get a grant free of tax, and they could conduct their own lives as medical students do. If they are not students but workers, then they should be given a reasonable wage. But these girls are neither. They are used as cheap labour, with the result that often they are too exhausted to study adequately, and it is not surprising that so many of them give up in the first year. I am astonished that those in authority do not ask themselves: "Why is it that this large proportion of girls give up in the first year?" In fact, they have simply turned a blind eye to this problem, and when not enough girls have come forward they have gone to the under-developed countries and Commonwealth countries, where nurses are desperately needed, and imported them into our hospitals. I am quite happy that these girls should come here, but the fact that our girls are not coming forward must be glaringly obvious. Yet nobody has taken any notice of this.
Finally, in order that noble Lords may realise what an extraordinary position it is, I want to say this. I learned from an item in a newspaper two days ago that nurses are charged 2s. 6d. for a prescription. In a hospital where there is a dispensary full of drugs of every kind, with its own dispensers and pharmacists a nurse is charged 2s. 6d. for a prescription from this miserable little wage that
268
she has. Again on the subject of pay, the orderlies and the domestics in the ward get a bigger take-home pay than the nurse.
I would ask the Government, as successive Governments have so many times been asked, directly or indirectly, not to think in terms of appointing a Royal Commission. As a matter of fact, I am told that this idea has been turned down (thank heaven!) in another place. A Royal Commission is a committee which goes on from year to year and, it seems to me, never comes to the right decision. I would ask that someone in authority should have the courage to say that this is so unjust and also so short-sighted, from the point of view of the hospitals and the country, that these girls are justified in making a protest. And I hope that as a result these conditions will be changed forthwith.
6.3 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Amulree for raising this question. He has spoken of pay, and I wish first of all to say a few words to your Lordships on this subject. I have taken the case of a first-year student nurse, under 25 and resident, who is seeking to obtain the certificate of State Registered Children's Nurse. There are different scales; they are a little higher for non-resident nurses, but the average applies to all nurses. I seek to put before your Lordships the case of those young girls who are unmarried and live in, who have chosen nursing as their vocation and whose services we need so badly. I ask the Government for consideration not only of these, but of the whole profession from top to bottom.
A matron in charge of 700 beds, who has responsibility for the training, guidance and efficiency of the nurses under her charge, receives a salary of £2,262. If living in, £344 is deducted for rent and laundry. This post is usually the peak of a career within the nursing services, and her responsibility is enormous. In a moment I am going to give your Lordships
statistics which I have taken from Queen Mary's Hospital for Children,
Carshalton, which is within my group. Before doing so, however, I should like to make a few general remarks.

269
In years gone by it was understood that girls took up nursing as a vocation; and this, in my dictionary, is defined as:
"a divine or spiritual injunction or guidance to undertake a duty".
Those days are over. I have the honour to be associated with a number of charities and to the best of my ability I have seen to it that those who administer them are all similarly paid and, so far as possible, work in conditions comparable with people in other work, athough, naturally, many accept a lower wage in view of the nature of their work. I am blessed in my group with having lovely buildings, but in my privileged position as a Member of your Lordships' House I would speak for all, fully realising that the dreadful construction of some of our hospitals, and especially those for the severely subnormal, makes the well being of nurses vital for the whole future of the Hospital Service.
I should like to put before your Lordships the facts of the pay of a first-year student nurse, resident, remembering that this student nurse does duty on the ward when available from her studies, and does a 42-hour week. Basic pay for the month is £32 18s. 4d.; week-end pay and night duty, if in the course of duty, nil. Deductions are: lodging £2 1s. 8d., tax £1 8s. and National Insurance £2 16s. 4d; total £6 6s. Net pay received is thus £26 12s. 4d. This student might earn up to £3 a month in overtime. If we assume that she pays £2 6s. 1d. a week on food (and I shall be talking about this in a moment), she will have left £18 10s. a month, or £4 12s. 6d. a week, for all other purposes, including clothing herself in her civilian clothes, which, like other young girls, she wants to do, and everything else. Is it reasonable to expect the nursing profession, both men and women, to accept this pittance of a wage in what is called a vocation? It would be impossible in the name of humanity for them to strike.
I have now dealt with the pay. In the name of all justice, I protest about the structure of the Whitley Council and all its works. Someone must put forward the case of the nurses in our land, and if, as I see it, it is not done by the Whitley Council, I join with Lord Amulree and everybody else in this House to-day in protesting against the situation of nurses both in pay and conditions. This, my Lords, may seem to be the moment to sit down,
270
but I believe that what I am about to say may be of value in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of the much publicised question of that dreadful phrase, "pay-as-you-eat".
I confirm the interjection I made in the Second Reading of the Nurses Bill, that the success of this experiment depends on good administration. The first criterion must be that anyone who wishes to have full meals throughout the day does not pay more than was automatically deducted from his or her pay under the old system; that is, £2 6s. 1d. per week. That is vital, and I have heard rumours that this criterion is not being followed in some hospitals. The second criterion is that the nurses have time to get their meals and pay for them without curtailing too much of their time off, and in this regard, by reconstructing the servery we are trying to ensure that the available meals are visually shown, so that the time of queueing can be reduced. Before producing my figures, may I say that I have visited the cafeterias of both Queen Mary's and St. Ebba's Hospitals, and have sat down with and talked to the nurses while they were having their meals. I have received favourable comments on the new system and the food.
It is difficult to judge on the first five weeks of any scheme, but I produce these figures for all using the cafeteria. It would appear that all concerned are, on the whole, better off, but we must take into account that it is a short period in what I feel is a long-term project. At Queen Mary's Hospital for Children, the overall finance of the cafeteria experience of the first five weeks is as follows. sums formerly collected from staff pay-packets for full board and residence, not now deducted, for about 300 staff—and that figure is an average residence staff figure over a year—and covering those five weeks, amounted to £2,237. The increased allowance made to non-resident student nurses for meals taken free when on duty amounts to £476. The total increase in income to the staff is therefore £2,713. Sales of meals in the cafeteria direct to all grades of staff amount to £1,618. The difference between the former figure and the latter—that is £1,095—is money which the staff have received and which has not been spent by them in our dining rooms, although there is general satisfaction with the quality of

271
the food. There already appears to be less wastage on plates, and I can assure the House that so far as I and the matron can see, none of the nurses are in any way starving.
There can be no doubt that the Hospital Service as a whole needs very careful thought. We have had Green Papers, and Committee after Committee, but I feel sure that we should have immediate action on the nurses situation if there is not to be a rather sad breakdown in the near future in our relations with the finest profession in the world.
My Lords, I have taken up just those two points, as I believe that short speeches should be the order of the day on Unstarred Questions. I sincerely hope that after the Summer Recess a full-dress debate will be arranged which will bring in all aspects of the Hospital Service, and I shall then have a lot more to say. I believe that a careful reappraisal of the whole pay structure of the Hospital Service must be made, and consideration must be given to the future of the nursing profession in the context of making it more interesting, cutting down to a minimum custodian care, especially in the subnormal hospitals, and encouraging nurses to reach out into the educational sphere—not that they do not do this so far as possible, but my dream would be that incentives should be given to make it worth while to train in teaching methods and hence make the whole field of nursing ever more interesting.
I would say, finally, in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill,
said, that I sincerely hope that our nurses will not start marching. I feel it lowers the whole standard—especially if they march in uniform. They are wonderful people, and I think they must know that there are very many of us who are doing all we can to see that they get a good deal.
6.17 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for raising this question now. I hope that as it has come at this time it may perhaps help the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, to start climbing up Lady Brooke's knotty beanstalk. I should like to say a few words to emphasise some of the points already made, but from the nurses' angle,
272
as I think it right that I should declare at this moment that I am on the Register of State-enrolled nurses.
As has been said, student nurses are quite unlike all other students. I think this cannot be emphasised too often, because they carry this tremendous responsibility which no other student pretends to carry. Second-year students, as has already been said may well find themselves—particularly at night—on a ward quite alone, when sister is off duty, in charge of anything up to 24 patients. For this they get, I think, in round figures, about £6 a week; and for £6 any of our lives can be in their hands. In my view, pay should be related to responsibility.
I want to talk quite separately about pay-as-you-eat. This morning I discussed this subject with one of the London matrons so as to get a really up to date picture of her view. I feel that there is some confusion between pay-as-you-eat for student nurses, and pay-as-you-eat for older nurses. Student nurses—as has already been emphasised—are very hungry young people, and they ought to be given the opportunity of eating as much as they want whenever they want, without having to dip into their own pocket for it. Again, when student nurses are on night duty it is absolutely essential that they should have their night drink in the small hours of the morning, without having to decide whether the cost is coming out of their pocket money. If it is coming out of their pocket money they have to weigh up whether it is worth having the drink at night, or the meat by day or whether they would not rather put the money towards the new shoes (which we have been told cost about £4), or perhaps towards the holidays. They should have this food or drink as their right. Of this I am quite certain.
However, I think that the older nurses present a different problem because often they are part-time and married; many of them are working not in acute wards but geriatric wards, and they choose this kind of nursing because it suits their home life. As older people they do not need so much food; they are probably not still growing. Also, they have (this is the point that the matron I was talking to thought was essential) an outside interest. If she had the choice, she would have all

273
student nurses living out, too, so that they also had a completely separate life apart from their work in hospital.
The student nurses' work, in the early days of training, is also physically heavy. As student nurses progress with their training and with nursing techniques, the work becomes easier and lighter. But, of course, the older nurse, the nurse looking after geriatric patients, does a type of nursing which needs immense patience. Those who look after the type of patient who—we have to face it—can never get better do a job which can indeed be very soul-destroying; and those doing it need a complete change when they are off duty so that their minds are taken off their work. All nurses must be properly fed. A tired nurse is not a good nurse, and when a nurse is tired accidents can happen.
A modern nurse does not like to be called a dedicated person. She probably is one, but she does not like to be called it. I think it is to-day's Times that describes her as a normal, happy career girl who, because she likes working with people, goes into nursing. She will remain in nursing only if the status, pay and conditions are made acceptable to her. I think we simply must remember that there is no uniformity of hospital conditions; there is no uniformity of hospital meals, and there is no uniformity of hospital matrons, either. Therefore, I ask myself: are the plans for the hospitals and the hospital services really designed to tidy up administration, rather than for the benefit of the nurses and the comfort of patients?
6.23 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN or FREELAND: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for asking this Question. I feel I have very little to say that has not already been said by previous speakers. I feel very strongly about the nursing profession, having been at one time chairman of three nursing committees at the same time, two in teaching hospitals in London and one in a psychiatric hospital in the country. I have had the opportunity of talking to, and have had many friends among, senior nurses and matrons and I have talked to many nurses in training, and have learnt from all something about their work, their training, and the con-
274
ditions in which they work. I have also, unfortunately, had a good many operations and have been in hospital quite a number of times. I have been in hospital not only in London but all over the world—in the Middle East, India, China and the United States. I think I can say quite definitely that everywhere I have regarded my recovery as 70 per cent. due to the nursing I was given; and that goes for all the different nationalities who have nursed me.
I am very shocked by this outburst that has taken place, and I mind that the nurses should be put in this very prominent position. I think it is entirely due to the unfortunate pay-as-you-eat (that awful expression), and I think it has had a very distressing effect on all non-resident nurses in training. Not that I think the nurses want to be residential. In fact, most of them do not. I am quite sure your Lordships know that no young person really wants to live at home, even her own home, a hall of residence at a university, or a nurses' home. Most of the nurses would like to live out and pay for the meals they take from the hospital. It is really an extremely small, pitiful amount, after deductions for income tax et cetera, that nurses are left with to live on and pay for their meals, and this has caused the unfortunate outcry in the country.
I was going to quote the various figures that ether speakers have quoted before me, but I think that as I know more about nurses in training in London I will speak a little about that subject. We know that they get London weighting, if they are in a London hospital, of £90. But there is a great difficulty in London because those who live out have a very high rent to pay and often have very high fares. I have an example here. It is that of a third-year student in London who has an average of £9 a week, after statutory deductions, and has to pay between £3 10s. and £4 10s. for accommodation. One third-year student whom I know personally pays £3 10s. to share a house with eight other nurses, sharing a room with one other person. She has to pay 12s. a week in fares to and from the hospital. This leaves her just under £5 to cover everything else. This girl gets some help from her parents, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said, we really ought not to take that into

275
consideration. We must cater for the girl or boy who has no help from her or his parents. Now as a non-resident student this girl, who has been getting all her meals free on duty, will be considerably out of pocket. She will be given £66, reduced by tax to about £52, to cover the cost of such meals; that is only £1 a week. I do not know how she is going to manage. A second-year student nurse under 21 years of age would be even worse off than the third-year student because her allowance is smaller.
This is the crux of the matter. Whereas in the past when nurses had their meals in the hospital they could eat as much as they liked, now they will look at the menu to see what is the cheapest item on it and will probably buy that. Surely this is not a very sensible way of looking after these young people aged from 18 to 21, who must be fed properly if they are to perform these heavy and exhausting duties which, as various speakers have said, can also be very emotional. Their physical strength must be sustained if their duties are to be carried out properly and efficiently. We know that all the hospital meals are subsidised, but I think that either they must be subsidised even more—otherwise the nurse will not get sufficient food—or we must think of something such as a luncheon voucher or supper voucher which will be provided from hospital funds.
There is one small point about which I should like to ask the Minister. It is on the question of London weighting, which for nurses living out is £90. I am told that nurses working in the Department of Health receive £120 a year, as do other civil servants. I cannot see why nurses in hospital should receive less.
I should also very much like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and various other speakers, on the question of calling nurses "student nurses". This is completely ridiculous. If they did not work in the hospitals practically all the wards would be closed down at once. I am sure that everyone who has taken part in this debate feels the same. We must either give these girls a proper training allowance and treat them as students and not tax them, or else treat them as part of
276
the staff and pay them for the work they are doing.
I should like to say a word now about qualified staff. The newly qualified staff nurses also have great difficulty in managing on their salaries. The budget of one staff nurse known to me, which is typical of many, shows that her take-home pay averages about £56 a month, out of which she pays a rent of £3 10s. 0d. or £4 0s. 0d. a week for a flat which she shares with three other staff nurses. She has to pay for all her meals on duty, and she also has to pay for electricity and gas and fares to and from the hospital. As the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, said, the staff nurse has to buy her shoes and stockings, although why they should not be part of the issue of her uniform I have never been able to understand.
At one of the hospitals in which I worked for some time as chairman of the nursing committee we used to have a number of Australian nurses on the staff, but most of these have left to take jobs outside nursing. One such staff nurse recently resigned after four months to take a routine clerical job for which she is paid £20 a week. She was a good nurse and was sorry to leave the hospital, but she had not expected nurses' salaries to be so low in this country and she wanted to take a holiday in Europe before she went back to Australia.
Now I should like to come to the senior staff. The latest blow is the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board that the maximum salary to be paid to a chief nursing officer—recommendation No. 10 of the Salmon Report—should be £2,950. In my view this is absolutely inadequate for a man or woman who must hold high nursing qualifications, who must have extensive and varied administrative experience in nursing, and who must have attended a top management course. I wonder what is the maximum salary of such a nurse's colleagues on a course of this kind? I imagine it is certainly a good deal higher than £2,950. The chief nursing officer in a large hospital may be responsible for a budget in the region of £2 million; for the deployment and control of up to 2,000 professional nursing staff, and for the co-ordination of education services for probably some 700 students. On the professional side, responsibility is

277
for the standard of nursing care given to all patients, and in a modern hospital group there may be more than 3,000 in-patients. One specialist London hospital has nearly 2,000 out-patients a day.
The chief nursing officer advises recruitment boards and committees on all matters affecting the nursing service and prepares, interprets and reviews nursing policy in consultation with professional colleagues, including medical staff whose arguments and tactics appear to the nurses to be reasonably effective where pay is concerned. All this for £2,950 a year at most. I saw the advertisement mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asking for a chief nursing officer for a hospital or group of hospitals of 4,000 beds, and the salary offered was £2,250 per annum, no doubt eventually reaching that tremendous salary proposed by the Prices and Incomes Board of £2,950.
My Lords, I think the Government should have some new thoughts on the salary structure of the entire nursing profession. The status of the nurse in training should be reconsidered, and if we had an adequate number of sister tutors it would he possible for the nurse to complete training in two instead of three years. This has been tried in several places and is effective. If the nurse was treated as a student, deductions for income tax would be removed and the nurse would certainly be a little better off.
The salaries of tutors are worrying, and they should also be studied, for we are not encouraging fully trained nurses to take on the job of tutor. We are not encouraging the fully trained staff sister or ward sister to come in and be trained as a tutor, and those who are tutors are often leaving the nursing service and going into technical colleges where they can earn more than they can in the Health Service. Specialisation in medical and surgical care in our hospitals today is making new demands on nurses and involving them in new and exciting work. He or she has to be very well trained, and therefore we need more tutors to do this training.
I think that the salaries of the higher paid nursing staff should be studied carefully with regard to their responsibilities and the leadership which is required of them. I know it is difficult to compare
278
responsibilities, but I cannot believe that in any other profession they would be rewarded at such a low level as is paid to a chief nursing officer.
No one has greater admiration for the Health Service in this country than I have, but we shall not be able to recruit or even keep our nurses unless we do something to bring salary scales in the profession more into line with those paid for equivalent technical skill, responsibility and administrative capacity such as in the Civil Service and in industry. I do not think that we are encouraging young people to come into the nursing profession; we are not providing an incentive for them as opposed to the rewards offered in other callings. Nursing is a remarkable profession. I agree that it is not a vocation, but I believe that in the heart of every nurse there is a feeling that they are contributing something to the good of humanity. Surely we do not want to lose these people from the profession which, after all, deals with birth, life and death.
6.36 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, over the years the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has enabled us to discuss a number of medical matters in this House, but I doubt whether he has afforded us a more valuable exercise than the present one, when the emotive heat of this very human problem has indeed reached boiling point. We have this valuable debate in which we have a number of expert speakers (myself excluded) to discuss, albeit briefly, a most important topic. Like many of your Lordships, my family has a long record of service on hospital committees and hospital boards, both prior to and during the National Health Service. I myself have served on the house committee of the Children's Hospital, and I now serve on the committee of one of the hospitals under my noble friend Lord Grenfell, to whom on more than one occasion we have owed deep debts of gratitude.
I should like to deal with one particular subject, that of accommodation. We have embarked on a programme of new hospital building that is by no means adequate, but with the commitments which we have in various public fields we obviously cannot have all the hospital buildings we need. I have raised this question before, and I raise it again now. I hope that in this matter of the

279
problems facing the nursing profession particular attention is being given to the accommodation of nurses who come, say, to the South of England from the North of Scotland, from Northern and Southern Ireland and from the Commonwealth. These girls—and indeed men—cannot get home every week-end, nor even every six months, even if they had the money to do so, which they most certainly have not. I believe that much of the problem surrounding nursing is due to the fact that the nurses' homes in which they live are, even to-day, substandard.
There is, too, the question of ward design. For example, we have heard of Orpington Hospital, in Kent, with one student nurse looking after 90 patients in a long ward. Supposing an emergency happened half-way down the ward—presumably she would have to run down and cope with it, and there might be two or three other emergencies happening at the same time. I was in Finland last year and I visited two hospitals there in which they have small wards, each containing four to six patients. Comparing Finland with this country is not, obviously, comparing like with like. And I recognise that they do not have the same problems of public expenditure as we do. Nevertheless, I hope that some of our architects, when they design our new hospitals where our nurses, both student nurses and senior grades, have to work, will perhaps pay more visits to Scandinavian countries where design is so vital. I believe that our own hospital designers could learn a lot there.
On the subject of food, I do not speak with anything like the same knowledge as many who have spoken so far, but it seems to me that much will depend, bearing in mind the all too inadequate allowance given to the hospital authorities, on the quality of the catering officer. While we are rightly considering the pay of our nurses and our sisters and matrons, we must also consider the pay of the catering officer and the catering staffs. I am not thinking so much of the London teaching hospitals. There was an article in one of the papers about St. Thomas's Hospital and the catering there. Of course, they may well have more than one catering officer; they may have somebody who can go to the market and bulk-buy vegetables.
280
And St. Thomas's are obviously in a much better position, for example, than a hospital in Rugby or Stafford or Sunderland, where there is a great deal of industry, and where, understandably, the catering officer, if he or she can find a more highly remunerated post in a large industrial concern, will go there rather than to a hospital.
My noble friend Lord Grenfell has mentioned Queen Mary's, Carshalton and Epsom, an area with which I am connected on hospital committees, and I can fully endorse what he says, although some of the mental hospitals in the Epsom group are not as fortunate as others in their design or their facilities. So it is not only well outside London that these problems occur.
Quite clearly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and others have said, food is all-important, particularly to the student nurses. One cannot expect a young girl of 18, or a young man, a young student male nurse of 18 or 19, to look after a ward, perhaps of 50 subnormal patients, or a children's ward or a geriatric ward, if he or she has to filch in their pockets to see whether they can afford two or three shillings for a meal. I think that the Government really must be seized of this problem.
There is another important point here, and that is the change in nursing techniques. There are now more accidents on our roads; there are accidents in our factories; there may well be a serious rail accident at 1 a.m.—as there was near Newcastle the other day. That means that nurses, perhaps student nurses, have to cope with casualties, particularly if the accident occurs in an area where there is a shortage of nurses in the hospitals concerned. How splendidly they cope, too! If this debate has done nothing else, I hope that it will reveal to the Government that this problem of the nursing profession cannot any longer be left to Committees and Commissions of Inquiry. The need is urgent now. Surely the Prices and Incomes Board, which has already burst its seams on a number of occasions, can burst one more seam.
6.47 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, it has been said that this debate comes at a very appropriate moment, as indeed, is true. So far as I am concerned,

281
it could not have come at a more appropriate moment, as I have just spent six weeks in Westminster Hospital after a serious operation, and I am well aware that I stand here and make a speech simply because of the skill, not only of the surgeon and doctors but of the nurses who have been looking after me with absolutely untiring devotion and skill for so many weeks. I intervene because I cannot in adequate words express my gratitude for the devotion and efficiency and skill of the medical staff at the hospital. I always knew (although I never experienced it before) of the great skill of our nursing profession. But to experience it makes one realise that here is something—which I believe to be different from any other country in the world—their single-mindedness towards the patients; the fact that it does not matter whether it is day or night, the patients' needs are their first consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, rightly said that much of what they do is just hard slogging work, running up and down corridors answering bells, doing the very simplest and most humble things for one, as well as practising the skills which are needed for the difficult and important care after operation. What impresses me so much is that there are no demarcation lines in this profession. Nobody says to you, "That is not my job". If you ring a bell and want something, the staff nurse may do it for you; or the student nurse comes. But if none of them is available the sister will come: nobody says, "It is not my job." They all work together as a team, and they all work for the interests of the patient.
They are on duty for long hours. They work at weekends. Their pay and awards and salaries are, in my opinion, absolutely inadequate. We are all guilty—I am guilty as well as everyone else—of not having fought harder before. After all, this situation has been going on for a very long time. There are Members of your Lordships' House who have taken up this matter and have been working for it for many years. I feel guilty because I have not done it before, but I feel utterly dedicated to the fact that I shall do it now in every possible way I can.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree: what is wanted is a new structure for the nursing profession, which not only includes student nurses but goes
282
right up to the top. I have nothing but contempt for the Whitley Council, with its 55 members: it is not a negotiating body but a public meeting. How can one negotiate with a public meeting? There should be a small committee representing both sides, and bringing the whole structure of nursing into the modern world. We spend much money on research—not perhaps as much as we should—in order to save people's lives, and this is all most vitally important. But, my Lords, our lives, those of us who are ill in hospital, are in the hands of nurses every time there is an operation, every time new techniques are tried out. It is the nursing profession that holds the responsibility of life and death so consistently. I do not know how it is that this profession seems to have been so inadequately paid.
In my life, having been at one time chairman of an education committee, I have fought for better pay for teachers, for instance. That was one of the things one was anxious for. But when I look at the pay of teachers to-day I find that it is considerably better than it was in the past. They have three months' holiday in the year; they have weekends off unless they happen to be doing something special for the children, for which they get paid. Yet so far as I can make out from those who have been quoting figures in regard to nursing, no nurse is offered three months off every year for holidays; nor do nurses get every weekend off. Occasionally they have a weekend, but nothing to compare with what other professions get.
Nursing is a marvellous profession, and we want to encourge as many young girls as possible to join it. But why should they, if they see their contemporaries going into other professions, secretarial or much less skilled professions, and getting far more money? It is all wrong. For too long the shades of Miss Nightingale have closed around, not the growing boy but the growing girl. It is time that all this stopped and a new look was given to this profession.
Like many others who have spoken, I do not think that inquiries are necessary. We all know about this profession. We have skilled women able to negotiate. We have many skilled people who understand and know the whole range of the

283
nursing profession and all that it means. What we have is a lot of stubborn, obstinate men in Government circles who are determined to continue to exploit this profession as it has been exploited in the past. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, someone for whom we all have enormous respect, and who really understands these matters, will stand up to some of her colleagues and tell them that we in the House of Lords, who in many ways are regarded as old fuddy-duddies, and what you will, feel so strongly about this that we will back her up together with anyone else who will see that this profession is given the proper status, the proper standing and the proper pay to which it is entitled in this day and generation.
6.52 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, the hour is getting late for a Thursday Sitting in your Lordships' House, and so I will try not to detain noble Lords for more than 15 minutes on this most important subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has so rightly given us the chance to air our views this afternoon. To begin with, I would say that we have been discussing one of the main priorities on our home front. The subject matter concerns England, Scotland and Wales, as to the grave injustice which has been meted out to nurses, and which I can only describe as monstrous, Her Majesty's present Government have an urgent duty to perform; namely, to root out the injustice as expeditiously as possible. Legislation should be brought in whereby nurses have a fair deal for the noble and self-sacrificing work which they perform, with such dedication, for the good of our nation. As things are, nurses are working in tens-of-thousands of instances in outdated hospitals, with poor rations for which they are made to pay from £2 6s. 1d. to £3 a week. They are further asked to pay £6 per year for cups of tea and coffee.
Further, I ask your Lordships whether you consider rises in pay of between £30 and £60 a year, awarded in March, 1968, to be adequate or just to the nurses. It is my belief that all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have the privilege to speak in your Lordships' House, no matter where they sit, will see to it that
284
in future, and speedily, will press for and pursue legislation whereby those dedicated and long-suffering members of our society will receive their just reward for the wonderful qualities that they possess and the hard and dedicated work which they perform.
Believe it or not, my Lords, to be a nurse one must have great patience, a sense of humour, two pairs of hands, two pairs of feet, a couple of sets of brains and dedication. What have the Government meted out to these nurses as a reward for their extraordinary qualities? With humility, as a Back Bencher I will give your Lordships the answer, although in your hearts you know it already. They were given "tea and sympathy", as the Daily Express, a newspaper which often hits the nail on the head. put out as a heading on their main leader in the issue of to-day's date. That has been backed up by a brilliant cartoon by the beloved cartoonist, Giles, on the same theme.
This insult of "tea and sympathy" does not cease with student nurses—a term by which I know and appreciate that they do not like to be called. It is meted out to them along with other nurses in the nursing profession. It concerns charge nurses and ward sisters, right up to the matrons of hospitals, in whose particular case, for "carrying the can" in a position of great responsibility, no matter how big the hospital may be, the maximum salary they can earn is £2,950 a year. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, underlined this; therefore I need say no more.
I would term the cynical indifference of the Prices and Incomes Board of Her Majesty's Government as the main cause of the feeling of injustice among the nursing profession. We learn that the Whitley Council—and I do not respect them—is to meet against on May 30. If they have to meet at all, why do they have to wait until May 30? The Council should meet immediately to consider every facet in the pay structure in the nursing profession and also to find ways in which members of the committee can best improve the conditions under which our nurses have to work.
Noble Lords will perhaps allow me to quote the last four paragraphs of this morning's main leader in the Daily Express. I do so because it puts into words

285
better than I can what I feel would be the forthright opinion of the electorate of this country if a referendum were taken in regard to the subject we have discussed this afternoon and on which noble Lords and noble Baronesses have made such valuable contributions. The last four paragraphs of the leader read as follows:
"The Whitley Council is to meet again on May 30. Between now and then let
the management side, representing local authorities, regional hospital boards and Ministry of Health, understand one thing. Far from expressing the public's view by the preposterous offer of tea and milk, they do the country a grave disservice. Pay these young women the extra £1 a week. Daily they demonstrate that they have earned it."
Yes, my Lords, they have earned it.
I can see a ray of hope for a happy and just outcome of this appalling injustice which has continued for far too long for those engaged in the honourable profession of nursing the sick and needy. Her Majesty's Government are fortunate in having Mr. Richard Crossman as the Secretary of State for Social Services. With humility, as a Back Bencher, may I say that I believe that he, like myself, is now aware of the disgraceful results that this so-called "new deal" has brought in its wake to the student nurses in our already understaffed hospitals. I believe him to be a man of high principle and a man who has shown in the past that he will not stand for injustice. Through the medium of your Lordships' House, I would say to the members of the nursing profession, "Give him a chance once again to root out the injustice that has been meted out to you"; and I would most certainly add that you can rely on the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota—whom noble Lords, in common with myself, no matter where they sit in this Chamber, welcome on Her Majesty's Government's Front Bench—as a lady of great principle, knowledge, humanity and understanding.
I repeat that I believe that the two Ministers I have mentioned have a high sense of duty arid will see to it that the injustice of which I have spoken passionately will be remedied, and that they will work untiringly to find a formula to show justice in this very important matter. The only thing that can go wrong is if the Leader of the Government in control at the present time chooses to lock himself
286
in his ivory tower once again and take control himself, without listening to the considered advice of his own appointed Ministers.
As things are to-day, is it too much to ask, if this and other injustices in Government continue, that the Leader of Her Majesty's Government should immediately think of putting Queen and Country before self? If this noble step was taken, then at least some very creditable words would be written in history books for future generations to read. Again, through the medium of your Lordships' House and as a mere Back Bencher, I know that I can tell members of the nursing profession that in the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, they have a man in whom they can place their trust; for he, too, is a man of great principle who has the utmost respect of those of us who are privileged to sit in this Chamber. Having said that, I would add that I also know that the nursing profession could equally rely on my noble Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when the electorate calls upon us. the present Opposition, to take over the reins of Government.
The hands of the clock are advancing, so with your Lordships' permission I will conclude on a personal note which has a direct connection with the nursing profession. I have spoken passionately in the interest of those tens of thousands of the nursing profession who are vital members of the lifeline of the electorate. Your Lordships could have been spared my speech quite easily, for I have spent a sixth of my 63 years and two months in hospitals, nursing homes, and such like places, and by all the medical rules I should not have been able to address your Lordships this afternoon. I thank my Maker that he has spared me to do so. From my medical history—with which I do not intend to bore your Lordships—I should have been six feet under the ground many years ago. Some 15 or so years ago I was given a new lease of life by a brilliant surgeon, backed up by equally brilliant nursing in a hospital in England. Some three years later I had a third major operation and I was once again given hack my life, for which I give my grateful thanks to an eminent doctor, a famous surgeon, a well-known anaesthetist, and a highly trained operating theatre staff, plus, my Lords—and here I

287
give my especial thanks—the nurse who refused to go off duty for 36 hours so that she could care for me through the most difficult post-operative period, knowing full well that my chances of survival were only one in ten.
I am a bit long in the tooth now, but through the great help and encouragement of nurses on many occasions in my life I have been enabled to make my modest contribution to Lord Amulree's important Unstarred Question. I have said what I have without trundling into your Lordships' House with a caliper on my right leg and a surgical boot built up some 1¾ inches. How is that, my Lords? It is so because a nurse who I met on holiday, knowing that as a young man at the age of 16½ I was worried about having to wear such surgical appliances, gave up her time and taught me to walk without it. I can never thank that nurse sufficiently.
So it is that I will resume my seat, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for referring to myself in my speech. I have done so only to illustrate the wonderful and noble work that nurses of every grade are performing in our country today. The benefactions that happened to me through the loving care of nurses have not happened only to me; they happen in some form or other throughout our country each minute of the day and night, in every week, in every month, and in every year. My last words—and they come from the depths of my somewhat fast-beating heart—are, "You cannot let the nurses down and I know you will not do so".
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I must apologise for this uncovenanted intervention but I will indeed be brief. At the moment nursing is in the news, and I very much hope that this debate will be fully reported in the Press. I also hope that in the course of that report some emphasis will be given to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster when she, I think, put her finger on the proper solution of the eat-as-you-earn question by distinguishing between the student nurse and the older nurse. I think that is a very important point and I hope that the Press will take notice of it and emphasise it.
7.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, the whole House, the nursing profession, and indeed the public, will all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for raising this important and topical question to-day. I wish at the outset of my reply to endorse what has been said in all parts of the House about the vital role which nurses play in the effective functioning of every aspect of the Health Service. We all welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. If ever there was a testimonial to medical and nursing skills, it was the powerful and vigorous speech which we heard from her to-day.
No one, least of all Ministers responsible for the Health Service, could be complacent about the present situation. and I am only too conscious of the need for further improvement in many of the spheres which have been touched on in the debate arising out of the noble Lord's Question. I think it is also important, when considering the present position, not to overlook the progress already made, or to forget to pay tribute to those responsible for the improvements that have been achieved over these last years. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, reminded us, when asking his Question at the outset of our debate, of the rapid strides that have been made in medicine in the last twenty years, and of what these, in their turn, have meant in terms of demands on nursing skills and the new developments and new techniques that they have necessitated. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, reminded us, too, of the additional responsibilities which these developments have placed on the nursing profession, and I should like to add the tribute that we all pay to them for the resilience they have shown, for the way in which they have met the changes in the demands made on them, and for their readiness to adapt their skills to these changing needs.
I think the whole House will also agree that there have been considerable improvements in the general conditions over the range of the service and under which nurses work. There have been improvements in pay, in hours of work, in relief

289
from non-nursing duties, and in equipment and environmental conditions, although all of us would wish to see these improvements go further and faster. Many noble Lords have also indicated that the conditions under which nurses work are affected by many things: by their physical surroundings (and here I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland); by the standard of buildings in which they work, and by the accommodation in which they live when they are resident. Here it is gratifying to note that in the coming year we are to spend twice as much on hospital building as we did in the years 1963–64.
The conditions of nurses are also, of course, affected by the equipment which they use; by their training; by their opportunities for adding to their knowledge at later stages of their career; by the management—and this has already been mentioned in the debate—at the top of the nursing profession; by the wards, which will be reflected in the efficiency with which their nursing duties are organised, and also by the extent (and I regard this as of the greatest importance) to which they are still required to cope with clerical and domestic duties that do not require the trained skills of a professional nurse. Lastly, we are all conscious that we need to look carefully at the arrangements which are made for them when they are not working, especially the need to consider the impact on nurses of the uncertainty which many of them suffer in not knowing their off-duty times and their holidays.
For reasons which I think we all understand, the debate to-night has confined itself in the main to the current issue of pay, including pay-as-you-eat. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, suggested to us that at a later stage we might have a full debate over the whole range of problems affecting the nursing profession and developments of the future; and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, in a very thoughtful speech, touched on some of the points that we might discuss in a future debate of that kind. Because of the hour, I shall confine myself this evening to answering the major issues that have been raised; namely, the question of pay and the effects of the recent introduction of pay-as-you-eat.
290
First of all, several noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, at the outset, and other noble Lords later—asked about the Whitley Council, and whether we needed new machinery for dealing with questions concerning nurses' pay. The noble Lord. Lord Amulree, suggested that there should be independent review machinery, using the analogy of the arrangements introduced for the medical services. I think I ought to remind the House that this last revision of nurses' pay, which I will mention in some detail in a moment, was in fact an independent review. It was carried out by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in 1968, and the role in this case of the Whitley Council was to translate the Board's recommendations into specific agreements by the process of collective bargaining.
When the Government accepted the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board last year as being consistent with the incomes policy and commended it to the Whitley Council for negotiation, the effect of the recommendations on pay as a whole was that there was a general increase of 9 per cent. in salaries and training allowances, with a 14 per cent. increase for certain grades. I think that these figures have, in a sense, been somewhat forgotten in the past few days of heightened public debate on a particular aspect of the new arrangements. These increases have been paid in two stages. A 4 per cent. increase was paid in June or July, 1968, and was backdated to October, 1967. The remainder of the increase over the range of grades was paid on January 1 this year.
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, who touched on the question of the introduction of pay-as-you-eat and its relationship in the time scale to the payment of the last instalment of the overall salary increase. Pay-as-you-eat was deliberately not introduced until a few months—in fact, some three months—after the last of the increases, in order to give nurses time to assimilate to the new situation. I submit to the House that, at the time of a 3½ per cent. ceiling, both the Board and the Government recognised that exceptional treatment for nurses was called for in the terms of an incomes policy.
The Board also recommended other substantial improvements in nurses' pay

291
and conditions of service. These recommendations also have been implemented and have, I believe, been welcomed in all parts of the House. These included an increase in the mental lead from £50 to £100 from April 1, 1968, and its extension to all grades of nursing staff in psychiatric hospitals. I
know that that particular award was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland
and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who take a particular interest in this aspect of our National Health Service. There was also a similar lead of £100 to nurses employed in geriatric and chronic sick hospitals, and a revision of the system of special-duty payments for work at night and at weekends has been made from June, 1968. The Board also recommended the introduction of special rates of training allowances for students in general training over the age of 25.
Also, as part of its general settlement, the Board recommended that there should be a revision of the existing system of board-and-lodging charges. The objective here, as I indicated during the Second Reading of the Nurses Bill, was not that the Government, or the Whitley Council, or hospital management committees, or Regional Boards or local authorities should wash their hands of responsibility for nurses' meals and a proper standard of eating. The recommendation was made as a result of continuous requests over the years from the nursing profession itself. Here I very much take, and endorse, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, who said that in this matter there is a difference between the student nurse who is resident and the qualified nurse, who to-day is generally non-resident and frequently part-time.
Only yesterday, when I was in a hospital out at Epping, I discussed with three different groups of nurses their own reaction to this scheme which has not yet been introduced in their hospital. It was perfectly clear from the discussion that it was the student nurses who were the ones who were going to be most closely affected by the charge, when it was introduced. Here again I was grateful for the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, about the introduction of the canteen system in the hospital for which he is responsible. These nurses out at Epping were waiting
292
for their scheme. In this case the Hospital Management Committee decided not to introduce it until it could provide a full service so that each nurse, particularly each student nurse, should not encounter any hardship because of the changeover to the pay-as-you-eat scheme.
It is, I think, the practical application in these first five weeks which has revealed certain defects, not in the principle of the scheme as such, but in its administration, and particularly in relation to communications within the Hospital Service itself. This is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services wrote to all hospitals in the National Health Service urging them to introduce the scheme with care and consultation, and also to assist individual nurses who were in difficulty during the changeover period in ways which would prevent any hardship falling on any individual nurse or, indeed, on any group of nurses.
Noble Lords will have been reading in the Press in these last two or three days of the situation that has arisen since the introduction of pay-as-you-eat, and will have read the accounts of the meeting as recently as Tuesday of this week of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. At this meeting, the Management Side made an offer of a reduction of £18 in the annual lodging charge for younger students (because we accept the particular point that has been made in this debate), which would have left only a token charge in being for those in their first year. The Staff Side countered with a claim for £1 a week or free meals for younger students, pupils or nursing assistants, or, alternatively, for free meals vouchers for one main meal a day, which would amount to much the same.
The alternative they put forward is, I think, very much in line with the views that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, put forward to us as a way of ensuring that nurses who undertake such arduous physical as well as mental work—and I hope we remember that, although the physical strains are great, the mental strains are just as great on nurses to-day—are able to afford a meal that is relevant to the needs and the strains which the performance of their duties requires. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are as aware as anyone that nurses, especially young nurses, should be able to afford such a meal. The

293
Management Side's proposals would have meant that the nurses concerned would have been able to get four meals a day, including two main meals, on four days a week, plus cups of tea on duty and at night, at standard subsidised prices, without touching what had been their take-home pay under the old system.
My Lords, I think that everyone will appreciate that the timing of this debate, although it is particularly apposite in certain senses, makes my position a somewhat difficult one. Discussions are proceeding, and I think the House will understand when I say that we must await their outcome. No one could be more conscious than I am of the need to find early solutions to these problems. Negotiations will continue, but I hope they will continue in the atmosphere that the Management Side, which includes representatives of my Department, are not anxious or wanting to be mean, or to show lack of sympathy with the nurses. On the contrary, we are anxious to do all we can to assist in the improvement of their conditions.
Some of the things mentioned in this debate, and the recent uproar in certain quarters (but only in certain quarters) at the introduction of pay-as-you-eat, are really symptoms, I believe, of deeper causes of anxiety—much deeper than the question of meals—and I think we should all like to see them tackled. The particular controversy has served to highlight some of the more deep-seated grievances and problems within the profession. These are matters which it is not possible
294
to deal with in a debate of this kind; but all noble Lords, many of them sitting in this House now, who have a very close personal knowledge of and involvement in aspects of the National Health Service will, I think, agree with me in this analysis of the present position. Many noble Lords have themselves indicated some of the problems which are the causes (if I may put it this way) of the present unrest.
My Lords, I hope it will be possible to look at some of these matters as well as the pay question, which will be reviewed in the next comprehensive review of pay covering all grades of staff, which will no doubt be starting in the next few months. On the immediate issue, which is currently under negotiation, I am sure that both sides of the Whitley Council are as conscious as any Member of this House of the need to find early solutions. For my part, I am deeply grateful for the helping hands that have been offered to me to-day in climbing up the slippery bean-pole which the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, mentioned. After these last few weeks I am only too conscious of the difficulties of the task which I share with the Secretary of State for Social Services; and it is an immense support and comfort to me to know that noble Lords not only understand these problems but also wish me well in my battle5 on behalf of the nurses.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.