Sitting of 19 February 1970

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

    Windward Islands
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Minister of Overseas Development what financial aid was made available through Exchequer sources to the Windward Islands in 1969; and what percentage this represents of the total amount requested.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Ben Whitaker): In 1969, the four islands received development aid of £1,124,000 and budgetary aid of £1,119,000. Technical assistance and research grants amounting to £300,000 were also made available, and the islands also benefited from various regional schemes supported by Her Majesty's Government. In addition, the Commonwealth Development Corporation invested nearly £400,000.
    The second part of the Question does not arise, because the amount of budgetary aid is settled in discussion with the Government concerned, and requests for other forms of aid are made within the total of the sums allocated to the particular island.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the sort of progress which the Windwards are making individually and collectively towards becoming viable units on the basis of the amount of financial resources we are giving to them at present?
    Mr. Whitaker: Additional aid was granted following the visit of my noble Friend Lord Shepherd in December. The progress in Dominica, St. Vincent and
    562
    Grenada and St. Lucia varies according to each island, but we are glad to help the infrastructure projects, particularly roads, schools, police buildings and equipment.

    Overseas Aid
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Overseas Development what petitions she has received calling for the Government to allot 1 per cent. of gross national product to overseas aid by 1972, for an increase of aid through international agencies and for the negotiation of trade agreements on terms favourable to poorer countries; what action she proposes to take; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Overseas Development what consideration she has given to the petition forwarded to her by the hon. Member for Loughborough from the people, Joint Council of Churches and University of Loughborough, requesting an increase in aid for underdeveloped countries.
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Overseas Development how many communications she has received in connection with the Churches' Sign-In on World Poverty, submitted to Her Majesty's Government; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the number of petitions which have been forwarded to her in connection with the December Sign-In on world poverty; and what is the approximate overall number of signatures to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Overseas Development what action she proposes to take as a result of the representations made to her in connection with the December Sign-In on world poverty.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a further statement on her consideration of the petitions she has received calling for the Government to allot one per cent. of gross national product to overseas aid by 1972, for an increase in aid through international

    563
    agencies and for the negotiation of trade agreements favourable to poorer countries.
    Mr. Whitaker: My right hon. Friend and I have so far received over half a million signatures from 253 hon. Members to all of whom either I or my right hon. Friend have replied. We very much welcome the churches' campaign although we have specific reservations on some details of it.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend add something to what he has said? Will he, for example, say whether the proposals which have been put forward are ones towards which he and his right hon. Friend are broadly sympathetic? Can he say whether the sort of pressure coming from constituencies, including Putney, is helpful to him and his right hon. Friend in pushing the claim for a full share of the country's gross national product?
    Mr. Whitaker: It is extremely helpful for any political party in Government to be aware of the widespread concern expressed in this matter. I was very much impressed by the ecumenical unanimity of the Churches in this respect. We welcome the general support, although the specific targets are more optimistic than the Pearson Commission's target.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had an ecumenical reply on this subject from the Prime Minister. In view of the improved balance of payments brought about largely by British industry, will the hon. Gentleman step up his efforts to encourage voluntary contributions in aid and investment by British industry?
    Mr. Whitaker: We are always very glad to do anything to help in this respect. I am very glad to hear that my constituent shares my views on this matter.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Did the Minister receive many petition forms from Liverpool yesterday? Will my hon. Friend agree that one of the impressive things, apart from the number of forms, is the diversity of occupations which the forms show? Should not this increase determination that we as a wealthy nation should give greater support to those which are less fortunate?
    Mr. Whitaker: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There has been most remarkable unanimity of social, political and religious strength of opinion in this campaign.
    Mr. Braine: Will the hon. Gentleman be more forthcoming about the reservations he mentioned? Will he confirm that, despite the Government's recently announced figures, Britain will not reach the 1 per cent. gross national product target before 1975 and that the 0·7 per cent. proportion of that for official aid will not be reached before 1980?
    Mr. Whitaker: My right hon. Friend explained the Government's programme for the foreseeable two or three years on 27th November last. The House will be aware that the demand in the Sign-In by 1972 goes well beyond the Pearson Commission's target.

    Commonwealth Migration Council
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Overseas Development what part her Department plays in facilitating the work of the Commonwealth Migration Council.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): None, Sir.
    Mr. Farr: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for that reply. Would she agree that this council does a tremendous amount of good work in certain cases and that, wherever possible, its labours in this field should be encouraged?
    Mrs. Hart: Indeed, but it is not a question for me. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the council is particularly concerned with increasing the flow of British migrants to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are not countries with which we have Ministry of Overseas Development relationships.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is her policy in relation to Commonwealth Development Corporation investments in Rhodesia.
    Mrs. Hart: The investments made before the illegal declaration of independence remain but no new investment will be sanctioned.
    Mr. Farr: As one of the objects of the C.D.C. is to improve living standards for

    565
    the masses in under-developed countries, would the right hon. Lady now see how it can help to improve the living standards of out-of-work African workers in Rhodesia?
    Mrs. Hart: There can be no question of any new investment by the C.D.C. in Rhodesia so long as that country remains under the control of the illegal régime.
    Mr. Braine: Will the right hon. Lady explain why the C.D.C. has to pay interest on its investments in Rhodesia although it cannot draw any dividends from that country due to a political decision by the Government? Is that fair to the C.D.C., bearing in mind that Parliament put on it a duty to earn a profit on its investments?
    Mrs. Hart: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the C.D.C. cannot get funds out of Rhodesia on its investment. This creates a very difficult situation.

    Underdeveloped Countries (Purchases from Development Areas)
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will undertake to examine the possibilities for the purchase of plant, equipment and agricultural machinery in the North-East and other development districts of Great Britain in order to give further aid to the underdeveloped parts of the world and thus benefit peoples both at home and overseas.
    Mr. Whitaker: Opportunities of directing aid-financed procurement to industries in development areas are kept in mind but it has not been found practicable to relate expenditure specifically to particular districts. The Government have taken steps to encourage competitive industries in development areas; this more than anything else helps to bring increased procurement to those areas.
    Mr. Milne: Whilst I welcome that reply, it does not really go far enough in tackling the problem. Is my hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mooted the idea two or three years ago? If the factories in the development districts are not available, will my hon. Friend talk to the Departments concerned about the possibility of setting them up so that we get mutual aid both at home and abroad?
    Mr. Whitaker: While we cannot force developing countries to buy any specific products, we are always ready to inform them of the possible purchases they may make in development areas. If my hon. Friend has any suggestion in mind, whether concerning the North-East or any other development area, I should be very glad to look at it in conjunction with other Departments.

    Overseas Aid Fund
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she has now given further consideration to the proposal made to her for the establishment of an overseas aid fund to which the Government would contribute pound for pound with donations from private indivduals and organisations; and what steps she proposes to take.
    Mrs. Hart: I believe that the cause of overseas aid is best served by maintaining the present separation between the official development aid programmes which are Government-to-Government in character and the independent contributions of the voluntary bodies.
    Mr. Jenkins: Would not my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a closer partnership? Is there not an imaginative passibility here of the creation of a fund which private citizens and organisations would perhaps be very well disposed to contribute to if they could be assured that the Government would contribute pound for pound according to their contribution? Will not my right hon. Friend give the suggestion a little further thought?
    Mrs. Hart: I have looked at the idea carefully. I think that the problem, summarised, is that the organisations and their contributors value the independent character of the voluntary programmes. This idea might not lead to an increase in aid because it might be a little more difficult for the voluntary organisations to raise money in this way. We have very steady and good co-operation between the Ministry and the voluntary organisations, particularly through the agency of the Voluntary Committee for Overseas Aid and Development, so I do not think that there is much to improve in our relationships with them.

    Cayman Island
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Overseas Development what action is proposed, direct or through the Commonwealth Development Corporation, to help the Cayman Island authorities by the appointment of expert advisers for development and negotiation of projects submitted to them.
    Mr. Whitaker: Expert advice has been given to the Cayman Island authorities by the British Development Division in the Caribbean, and by other officers provided under British technical assistance.
    A development unit with an economist has been established, together with a development committee and planning board. A representative of the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be visiting the islands this month.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am sure that everybody in the islands will be delighted to hear that. It has taken many years to get the Government to take any interest in the islands, which earn a substantial amount in dollars for the sterling balances in this country.
    Mr. Whitaker: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that surveys are now being planned, including a harbour survey, a study of water feasibility and a study of the reorganisation of the school system along comprehensive lines.

    British Virgin Islands
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps are being taken to assist the British Virgin Islands to improve their police force.
    Mr. Whitaker: A new police headquarters has been designed and will shortly be built, and a new police launch is being provided. The cost will be met from British Development Aid funds. A new chief of police has been recruited, and advice and training for the police force are also being provided under British technical assistance.
    Mr. Marten: As there are about 80 British policemen in Anguilla, very near by, will the Minister give an assurance that if the people in the Virgin Islands, the Government or the Administrator desire further help from the British police
    568
    some policemen from Anguilla could be Cayman Island more usefully used there?
    Mr. Whitaker: Her Majesty's Government's interest and support for law and order knows no boundaries. In the British Virgin Islands we have recently been able to help to increase the police establishment from two officers and 35 other ranks to three officers and 41 other ranks.

    India
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Overseas Development what help she is giving to Dr. Humpage of the Manchester College of Science and Technology in relation to power engineering in India.
    Mrs. Hart: It is planned to second Dr. Humpage to the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, under collaborative arrangements supported by my Department. He will advise the Institute on the development of postgraduate courses and research in power engineering and may also organise a conference on this subject.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this kind of secondment is, in terms of value for money, perhaps the best kind of aid that we can give? Could she say something about an intended follow-up, because difficulties are caused by raising expectations and then not being able to fulfil them?
    Mrs. Hart: I entirely agree that this kind of arrangement is extremely beneficial in aid terms to the country concerned. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no lack of follow-up. I visited the I.I.T. in Delhi and was enormously impressed by the way in which we can help in the very valuable work that it is doing.
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on her recent visit to India.
    Mrs. Hart: The purpose of my visit was to study the problems and the successes in India's economic development, and to see for myself development projects, particularly those assisted under the British aid programme. I had useful talks on aid and development with Ministers and officials at both the State and Government of India level.

    569
    I found in India a very genuine appreciation of the contribution that Britain has made through both aid and private investment to their own great efforts to raise living standards. I am sure that we should continue and if possible increase this support.
    With permission, I will circulate a more complete statement with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hunt: In the course of her visit did the right hon. Lady go to the Ashok-Leyland factory in Madras, which is a splendid example of Indo-British cooperation? Will she try to encourage further ventures of this kind, which are an indirect, but none the less important form of overseas aid?
    Mrs. Hart: I did not visit that factory although I met its management and had the opportunity of discussions with them. I did visit the Dunlop factory in Madras, which is a very good example of the kind of collaboration the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibilities of the "third nation" type of co-operation whereby Britain can finance an arrangement under which India supplies finished products to other countries, which could lead to an improvement in India's balance of payments and ours?
    Mrs. Hart: This kind of matter was discussed at the technological collaboration meeting in Delhi, which I opened on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, and it arose in the course of some of our own discussions.
    Following is the information:
    My visit to India covered two main areas of development: agricultural and rural; industrial and urban.
    There is no doubt that in agricultural production India is pushing ahead fast, but it is clear that there is much yet to be done. Through visiting villages and agricultural schemes in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and the Punjab, and in my talks with farmers, officials and academics, I have come 'O understand the real meaning of the "green revolution" and to appreciate the enormous contrast between the dry areas and the irrigated areas.
    In the Tanjore district of Tamil Nadu, in South India, where an agricultural development scheme has been under way for some years, the results are impressive. Both small scale and large scale farmers are adopting new
    570
    methods of cultivation, making full use of fertilisers and other inputs, and using new high yielding strains of rice. Because the area is well irrigated agricultural production is high. The relative prosperity of the region is clearly having its effect upon the people; farmers are ploughing part of their income back into their farms, and they are purchasing new machinery and consumer goods.
    The economic growth of the region is also having an effect on the attitude of women towards family planning; increasingly they are coming to understand that large families are a drain on their individual earning power.
    Much the same situation is apparent in the wheat growing areas of the Punjab where increased opportunities in agriculture are bringing about the growth of small-scale industries in the rural areas. All this is in direct contrast to the dry areas in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh where the almost total absence of ground water means that the rural communities are at the mercy of the monsoon and eke out a precarious living. The problem of bringing water to the dry areas is an enormous and costly one. There is a good deal of research going on into and zone farming, and I was assured that under their new plan the Indian Government intend to concentrate on this matter.
    In India it is impossible not to be struck by another contrast—between advanced technology on the one hand and great poverty on the other. I was able to see some of India's industrial sector, at Madras, Durgapur, Kanpur and Panna. I was very impressed with the industrial advances being made. At Durgapur the first priority must clearly be to get the steel complex working to its full capacity. While the industrial advances being made in India are encouraging, I could not escape the impression that the development of the rural sector is crucial to the country's economic growth, in terms not only of agricultural development in itself, but also in terms of the intermediate industry this promotes.
    My tour of Calcutta under the guidance of the city's planning organisation was a somewhat depressing experience. I visited two of the most poverty stricken "bustee" areas, and saw the attempts being made at re-settlement. There is no doubt that Calcutta—and other large cities of India—face enormous problems for which there is no easy or quick solution.
    I greatly valued this opportunity of acquainting myself at first hand with India's achievements and problems and of discussing these matters with the Prime Minister and with other Ministers, both in the States and in Delhi. I am sure that this experience will help me in making my judgments as Minister of Overseas Development about the way in which we should continue to support the efforts of this great country to develop its resources and to raise the living standards of the people.
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Overseas Development what financial help she proposes to give to the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi in respect of equipment for the coming financial year.
    Mrs. Hart: Present plans provide for up to £50,000 in the financial year 1970–71.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that this fully meets the requirements of the institute, which is now doing very much more advanced and sophisticated work?
    Mrs. Hart: Looking to the future and following discussions and consultations that are to take place with the chairman of the committee established by Imperial College, we have very much in mind that our future commitments might be considerably greater.
    Dr. Miller: Would my right hon. Friend consider that since India is one of the few democratic countries in the world which we should be supporting she should single it out for special consideration in an area such as this?
    Mrs. Hart: I am very much aware of the great value of Indian democracy. We do make a large contribution to Indian development. I was glad of the opportunity to see for myself how justified that is and how justified our future aid to India will be.
    Mr. Biffen: Before the right hon. Lady assents to the suggestion of preferential treatment made by her hon. Friend, would she reflect on the harmful consequences of the Indian domestic policy of harassing overseas private investors?
    Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult some of his acquaintances who are concerned with British private investment in India he will not come to such a wild conclusion.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on the new aid agreement with India.
    Mrs. Hart: The new aid agreements which I signed last week in Delhi included a non-project loan of £9 million to help restore British aid disbursements to India to the level achieved in recent years. This will cover British components, spare parts and materials required to maintain production in priority sectors of Indian industry. The other agreement was for £1·2 million of food aid, and forms part of our contribu-
    572
    tion under the Rome Food Aid Convention.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask if she agrees that there is great anxiety about whether enough attention is being paid to India within the whole range of our aid programme?
    Mrs. Hart: No, I would not agree with my hon. Friend about that. I found in India a clear awareness of the high priority Britain's aid programme gave to India.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Lady say whether British aid has been given to India for fundamental research, bearing in mind that a great many brains are available for this type of work, and very little has been done in the past?
    Mrs. Hart: Most of our help on this kind of research has taken the form of technical assistance and the secondment of professors or teachers from here, which has been very valuable. On the other hand, we have also provided in some technological institutions valuable and quite expensive equipment which is necessary for the fundamental research done there. I agree that this is a most important aspect.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. Lady may be leaving the Chamber, may I give notice that at the end of Questions I shall be raising a point of order on Question No. 34?

    Canada and U.S.A. (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on her official visit to Canada and the United States of America.
    Mrs. Hart: I shall be leaving London this evening to attend three conferences on international development which have been organised successively by Columbia University in New York, the Canadian Government at Montebello, Quebec, and the Overseas Development Council in Washington. The visit will provide a useful opportunity for informal discussions with many of those concerned with development strategy in the 70s.
    Mr. Dalyell: When she comes back, will my right hon. Friend, as convenient,

    573
    produce for the House a written memorandum on her discussions on the Pearson Commission's Report and give an explanation, item by item, of what her Ministry hopes to do about it?
    Mrs. Hart: That raises a broader question. I would be glad to communicate to the House in any way appropriate the results of my discussions, but I should emphasise that a number of them will be very informal.

    Projects (Local Costs)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Overseas Development what criteria are used to determine the contribution which can be made towards local costs in projects aided by her Department.
    Mrs. Hart: Aid may exceptionally be provided to a limited extent for local costs where an independent country's domestic resources would be insufficient for effective use of the British goods to be purchased with our aid. We apply less exacting criteria to the dependent territories and Associated States.
    Mr. Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rural development projects, which usually involve a high degree of local costs, are more important than prestige projects? Are any restrictions placed by the Treasury on the level of costs she can meet?
    Mrs. Hart: Although I would not necessarily adopt my hon. Friend's form of words, I entirely agree that rural development is probably the most important aspect of development at present in many countries and that it involves difficulties on some occasions with local costs. Bat we believe that local costs should be the exception rather than the rule. Of all our bilateral financial aid in 1968, excluding refinancing, pensions and certain compensatory payments, about 35 per cent. was made available to cover local costs.

    Kenya and Uganda
    Mr. Hordernasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will earmark part of the United Kingdom's official aid programme to the Governments of Kenya and Uganda to those British subjects whose licences to trade in those countries have been withdrawn.
    Mrs. Hart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hordern: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that we owe more to British subjects in those countries than to those Governments whose policies have resulted in British subjects being forced out of work? Can we really offer them no assistance in those circumstances?
    Mrs. Hart: In so far as any question arises in any country of the relief of British subjects, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I dispute what the hon. Gentleman has implied about our relationships with Kenya.
    Mr. Hordern: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Overseas Development what request for capital aid has been received from the Government of Cyprus; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitaker: No request for capital aid has been received.

    British Volunteer Programme
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is her estimate of the number of volunteers who will go abroad under the British Volunteer Programme in 1970; and what were the comparable figures for 1969 and 1968.
    Mr. Whitaker: The voluntary societies hope to have at least 1,500 graduate and qualified volunteers and 325 cadet and school leaver volunteers overseas at the end of 1970. The provisional figures for 1969–70 are 1,490 and 337 respectively, and for 1968–69 1,414 and 373.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the latest growth of this very important and valuable form of aid?
    Mr. Whitaker: The figures reflect the fact that overseas Governments are becoming increasingly selective about the quality of the posts for which they require volunteers. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that the proportion of our volunteers who served for two years rather than one was 37 per cent. last year compared with only 20 per cent. in 1967.
    Mr. Marten: Is there any intention on the part of the Government to alter the rate of contribution involved?
    Mr. Whitaker: We have no plans for doing so at present.

    Morocco
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Overseas Development what financial and technical assistance is given to Morocco; and what arrangements are made by her Department for the teaching of English.
    Mr. Whitaker: The Ministry's programme of technical assistance to Morocco, costing about £32,000 in this financial year, is being used to finance British consultancy services and feasibility studies. A small programme for training Moroccans in the United Kingdom has been started, and the British Council is providing 10 British teachers of English in Morocco, as well as training and advisory services for indigenous teachers.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: I am much obliged for that worth-while Answer. Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the English language programme is proceeding in Morocco with these teachers, in view of the great importance of enabling the leaders of the former British and French territories to be able to communicate in a common language?
    Mr. Whitaker: This is a point very much in the minds of many people concerned with development in the whole of Africa. We have now got 10 British teachers of English in the country, which I hope will make an encouraging start in this direction.

    Turks and Caicos Islands (Surveyors)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will recruit extra temporary surveyors, either as volunteers or on contract, to help the Registrar of Lands in the Turks and Caicos, in view of the lack of qualified surveyors there.
    Mr. Whitaker: I would certainly try to help if an official request were made.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Minister aware that he gave a somewhat mislead-
    576
    ing reply to a Question earlier, to the effect that there was a sufficiency of surveyors? Does he appreciate that all the information which reaches me is that that is not so? Will he consult the local authorities in the Turks and Caicos, since the Registrar of Lands says that he cannot survey other than Government land?
    Mr. Whitaker: We have had no request from the Turks and Caicos authorities. An investigation team financed by British technical assistance is at present in the Turks and Caicos Islands considering what in particular can be done to help with the problems connected with tourism and property development. There may be some requests arising out of this study.

    Nigeria
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the help being given to Nigeria in the current programmes of reconstruction.
    Mrs. Hart: The House will know that we have recently offered to increase the 1969 £1 million loan by up to £1 million, plus a further loan of up to £1·7 million for disbursement during the financial year 1970–71. Following discussions in London last month agreement was reached on the goods and services which could be provided under these loans. Some of these were for rehabilitation and reconstruction and some for longer-term development.
    Discussions are currently taking place with the Nigerian authorities, through the High Commission in Lagos, on their further needs.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am much obliged to her for that answer? Can she say whether any manpower resources are being sent to Nigeria as volunteers? In other words, will she give consideration to the possibility of asking for volunteer skilled technicians and the like, because these people will clearly be invaluable to the Nigerian authorities?
    Mrs. Hart: We all know that there are lists available in the medical sphere which can adequately meet any needs that the Nigerians may have. In the more technical areas we are aware of

    577
    people who would be available. It is very much a matter, as my hon. Friend says, of seeing what the Nigerians ask us to provide.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people who have given their lives to the people of Nigeria, in particular missionaries? Will she ensure, as soon as is possible and proper, that arrangements are made to facilitate their return to that country, for the benefit of the people and the country?
    Mrs. Hart: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. I think that he will recognise that this is very much a matter for the Nigerian Government to consider as conditions settle down.

    International Development Association
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on the recent meeting of the International Development Association held to discuss the next replenishment.
    Mrs. Hart: This meeting, which was held on 15th/16th December, was the first in a series of informal and confidential talks between the Part I members of the association to decide the amount of funds to be made available to it for the period from July, 1971. The next round of discussions will be in London on 9th and 10th March, and the aim is to conclude negotiations by 30th June this year.
    Mr. Archer: While I appreciate that the discussions are confidential and while I would not ask my right hon. Friend to disclose anything which took place, in view of what was said in the Pearson Report about the value of this work will she press for some speedy results from these discussions?
    Mrs. Hart: We shall be very anxious to make sure that the timing is maintained as is currently planned, and I have no reason to doubt that it will be. As the second largest contributor to I.D.A. we have a very special concern.
    Mr. John Fraser: As we get 30s. worth of exports for every £1 we contribute to I.D.A., can my right hon. Friend say
    578
    that there is no impediment to the British Government contributing more money?
    Mrs. Hart: I have said that we are the second largest contributor. We subscribed 12·96 per cent. of the original initial capital of the association and have agreed to put the same percentage into looking at the arrangements for the third the present replenishment. We shall be replenishment with our desire to increase the proportion of our multilateral aid very much in mind.

    Lesotho
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will enter into discussions on the future development of aid to Lesotho.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement about aid to Lesotho.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement about the future of aid to Lesotho.
    Mrs. Hart: We are examining the whole question of British/Lesotho relations following recent events in Lesotho. Our review naturally includes the future of our aid programme, on which no decision has yet been taken. It follows from this that the British Government's offer of future aid to take effect from 1st April next, which had not been formally accepted by the Lesotho Government prior to recent events, must be regarded as suspended until the general situation has been clarified. The question of discussions does not, therefore, arise at present.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While I understand the difficulties of the situation, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the sudden ending of aid to Lesotho would be extremely damaging to the people of that country? Will she also agree that there is a need for discussion with other African States?
    Mrs. Hart: There is, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, quite a lot of contact going on with other people about this. It is a very difficult question, but we feel it is right not to take any further steps involving the new provision of aid until we can see how the situation is clarified.
    Mr. Braine: While I fully recognise the delicacy of the present situation, may I ask the right hon. Lady if she is aware that the United Kingdom budgetary aid at the moment accounts for about half of all the budgetary resources available to Lesotho, and any withholding of that aid may have dire consequences for that country, and not merely economic consequences? Will she tell the House when we may have a statement on the subject?
    Mrs. Hart: I cannot give an undertaking exactly when. So much is dependent on how the situation resolves itself in Lesotho and exactly how long it takes to do so. It is my hope that the situation will so resolve itself that we may resume our discussions on aid with Lesotho without any anxieties in our mind.

    EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

      Scotland (Employment)
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the change in the total number of persons in employment in Scotland, in the number of men in employment, and in the number of persons employed in the service and distributive trades, respectively, between June, 1965, and June, 1969; and what was the percentage of total United Kingdom male jobs arising in Scotland in June, 1965, and June, 1969, respectively.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): Employment estimates for June, 1969, for Scotland are not yet available. Provisional estimates show that between June, 1965, and March, 1969, the number of employees in employment in Scotland decreased by 53,000. The number of males decreased by 67,000 and the number of females increased by 14,000. At both of these dates, 8·9 per cent. of all the male employees in employment in the United Kingdom were in Scotland.
      Estimates for Scotland analysed by industry are available only for June each year. Between June, 1965, and June, 1968, the numbers of employees in employment in Scotland decreased by 9,500
      580
      in the service industries, including the distributive trades.
      The decrease over the same period in the number of employees in employment in the distributive trades in Scotland was 21,600.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why have we not yet had the June, 1969, figures? The Department is taking a long time; is it trying to cook them? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he would answer a Scottish taxpayer who complained about the hundreds of millions of £s of his money which has been spent in Scotland only to produce a vast fall of 67,000 in the number of male jobs?
      Mr. Walker: I hope the hon. Gentleman took careful note of my reply, when I pointed out that at both the relevant dates the percentage of males in employment in the United Kingdom had remained constant for Scotland. I also point out that the latest unemployment figures show a 4,000 drop for Scotland, and I hope he will share my rejoicing in that.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the Defence White Paper published today announces the loss of several hundreds of jobs in Scotland because of the closure of an establishment near Perth, following the closure already announced of the ordnance factory at Alexandria, the result of the débâcle over the Mark 24 torpedo? When will the Government get down to effective methods of development, making better use of the money involved?
      Mr. Walker: My Department is not responsible for torpedoes, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the latest figure shows a 4,000 drop in unemployment in Scotland.

      National Board for Prices and Incomes (References)
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many references, relating to wage settlements and to price increases, respectively, have been made to the National Board for Prices and Incomes since 12th January 1970.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Two and one respectively; and one relating both to a wage settlement and to a price increase.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman may recall that on that date the Prime Minister, in a "Panorama" broadcast, said that the Government were considering sending a whole series of way settlements to this grotesque board. What has happened to all these settlements? Why have not they been referred?
      Mr. Walker: I am not sure that industry would share the hon. Gentleman's views about the board being grotesque. My right hon. Friend is at the moment engaged in consultation with the T.U.U. and the C.B.I. about appropriate references to identify and do something about areas of low payment in the economy.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it was necessary to make this such a big issue of confidence towards the end of last year, since his right hon. Friend is apparently now turning a blind eye to many large wage increases, some as high as 18 per cent.? Will he confirm that she has now been given the green light to go ahead on these?
      Mr. Walker: I hope the hon. Gentleman's statement reflects the concern of the Opposition that incomes should be kept in line with growth of output.
      Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned about precisely what is happening? Is it the intention to send the present claim for increases in the motor industry to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
      Mr. Walker: I cannot comment on the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers. On the general point, he will have read the Government's White Paper on the subject.

      David Brown Tractors (Pay Settlement)
      Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she has now received sufficient details of the productivity conditions attached to the recent settlement concluded between David Brown Tractors and the Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians' Association to determine whether it was consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy; and if she will make a statement.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The settlement provides for an increase at an annual rate of 6·4 per cent. but lacks productivity conditions, the main incomes policy justification given being labour market requirements. The settlement cannot be accepted as fully consistent with the productivity prices and incomes policy as set out in the current White Paper.
      Mr. Biffen: As a settlement, in the Minister's own words, is not "fully consistent with" the policy, what are the Government doing about it?
      Mr. Walker: We deem it inappropriate to take steps—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen should wait for the reply. We deem it inappropriate to take steps to prevent the implementation of this settlement in view of the more relaxed phase of the incomes policy indicated by the Government's White Paper.

      European Economic Community
      Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the relative increase in the price of consumer goods and foodstuffs between 1958 and 1968 in the countries of the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom, details of which are available to her from international sources.
      Mr. Harold Walker: As the reply consists of a table of figures I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I must emphasise that, owing to differences in concept, scope, methodology and presentation, it cannot be assumed that figures for different countries are comparable.
      Mr. Shinwell: Is there any special reason why my hon. Friend cannot give us the figures in the House? Are the Government trying to conceal something? Is it not true that prices in the European Community have risen much more rapidly over the years mentioned in the Question than they have in the United Kingdom, and if my hon. Friend knows that the figures indicate what I have said, why does he not agree with me?
      Mr. Walker: It is not universally true. Some countries show a substantial increase. There is no intention to conceal the information. I should have thought

      583
      my right hon. Friend would have appreciated that fact, the White Paper having been published last week.
      Captain W. Elliot: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that the matter of rising prices is only one side of the coin? The other side of the coin is the rise in earnings.
      Mr. Walker: I do not think the House would want me to answer questions about the Common Market.
      Following are the percentage increases in the consumer prices indices for all items and for food from 1958 to 1968:

      All Items

      Food

      Belgium

      26·9

      27·7

      France

      45·9

      40·3

      Federal Republic of Germany

      26·5

      20·3

      Italy

      39·3

      28·9

      Luxembourg

      21·3

      21·0

      Netherlands

      38·9

      37·3

      United Kingdom

      34·8

      27·3

      International Publishing Corporation Ltd. (Proposed Take-over)
      Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what decision she has made about referring to the Monopolies Commission the proposed take-over by the Reed Paper Group Limited of the International Publishing Corporation Limited.
      Mr. Harold Walker: At present I am not able to add to the reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 29th January.—[Vol. 794, c. 379.]
      Mr. Lipton: Why has it taken the Department so long to make up its mind about the actions of a tiny group of people who seek to control to an ever-increasing monopolistic degree these very important mass media?
      Mr. Walker: We are obtaining information from the companies concerned, and when we have that information we shall be in a better position to know what the future course of action should be.
      Hon. Members: How long must we wait?

    HOME DEPARTMENT

      16 year-old Boys (Sentences)
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a sentence of 14 years imprisonment may be imposed on boys of 16 years prior to any of the facts being disclosed in open court, and that there is no requirement for any plea in mitigation being made publicly by counsel for the defence prior to sentence; and whether, in view of the public importance of public justice being done in public, he will review the legislation under which this practice takes place.
      The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which my hon. Friend gave on 16th February to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).—[Vol. 796, c. 27.]
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that if the situation outlined in the question could happen in a case presided over by probably the most experienced criminal judge on the Bench, there must clearly be something wrong with the Criminal Justice Act. 1967, which enabled it to happen.
      Mr. Rees: In April, 1968, the Lord Chief Justice gave a practice direction to the effect that where there is a plea of guilty after committal proceedings subject to the restrictions on reporting laid down in the 1967 Act, the prosecution should state the circumstances of the offence before sentence is passed. We have no evidence of any other similar instance since the direction was given. In this instance, to use the judge's words, it was due to the fallibility of human error. I do not believe that is a basis on which to legislate.

      Dogs (Fouling of Footways)
      Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals for public education on the health and other hazards caused by dogs fouling footways he has made, following the discussions held last October with the local authority associations.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend is still considering with other interested Departments whether anything can usefully be done on a national basis, but it seems probable that the matter can most effectively be dealt with locally where the nuisance occurs. Some local authorities have already taken steps to draw the attention of dog owners to their responsibilities in this matter.
      Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend not confirm that at the discussions last October it was the express intention of the Home Office to embark on a programme of public education? Would he not agree that this is a matter which for far too long we have taken lightly and which can present a serious health hazard?
      Mr. Rees: The matter of health is not a question for the Home Office. I agree that education is required, but it is difficult to convince dog owners of their responsibility in this matter. It is one of the most difficult educational matters I know.
      Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of prosecutions made in 1968 and 1969 of persons whose dogs had fouled the footway or other public places.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I regret that this information is not available.
      Mr. Brooks: But is my hon. Friend not aware that all the evidence suggests that remarkably few prosecutions have been mounted? Would he not agree that this matter should not be dealt with with the sort of levity customarily shown in the House on these occasions and that, until by prosecutions dog owners are made aware of their responsibility in this matter, it is no good blaming the dogs?
      Mr. Rees: I am sure that the words of my hon. Friends will be taken note of at least by the owners.

      Race Relations Board (Forged Letter)
      Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief
      586
      Constable about the progress of the inquiries into the source of the forged letter purporting to come from the Race Relations Board asking firms to raise the proportion of their Afro-Asian employees to 25 per cent.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend is being kept informed of the progress of police inquiries, which are not yet complete.
      Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would the hon. Gentleman say when the results of these inquiries will be available, and will he undertake to let the House know them, since great anxiety has been caused to many firms which have received this circular from somebody purporting to be writing on behalf of the Race Relations Board?
      Mr. Rees: It is most important to me, with my responsibilities, that this should be done. This was a particularly ill-conceived and nasty matter, and I will undertake to do that.

      Magistrates Courts (Consistency in Sentencing)
      Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for achieving conformity and even-handed justice in magistrates courts, in view of recent cases of disparity in sentences.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Training courses and sentencing conferences assist magistrates in attaining consistency in sentencing. But the sentence to be imposed in an individual case remains a matter for the court to decide in the light of all the available information about the offence and the offender.
      Mr. Hector Hughes: is it not a sad criticism of our system of justice that there should be such disparity in the various courts? Will the Government set up an inquiry into why magistrates are not instructed to administer evenhanded justice all round?
      Mr. Rees: Of course justice matters in the law, as I fully accept, but one must take into account that local magistrates consider the local facts and circumstances and that a little inconsistency is bound to arise.

      SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
      Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Miinster when he next proposes to visit Scotland.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): On 24th April, Sir.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: During the Prime Minister's visit, will he make a special study of the serious effect on Scottish industry of the increase in tax on road users since one observes that during his term of office there have been four increases in petrol tax, two increases in vehicle licence fees and two increases in purchase tax? Will he exhort the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce this burden in the Budget?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend when he visits Scotland make clear the enormous advances which have been made in the provision of advance factories, the increase in the number of i.d.c.s and the improvement in the net emigration figures, compared with the years of the death throes of the previous Tory Government?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed to the extraordinary contrast in the matter of advance factories, the great improvement in emigration from Scotland both generally and indeed to England and Wales, and, of course, the very big increase in industrial building.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: If the Prime Minister wishes to help Scotland, which is so dependent on transport, will he cancel his own Government's damaging proposals for imposing an unwanted P.T.A., for taking away decisions and responsibility for Scottish ports from Scotland, and for imposing restrictions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"]—on large lorries and the distances that they can travel by irksome and time-wasting procedures?
      The Prime Minister: Most of these involve legislation. I leave the hon. Gentleman to the tender mercies of my
      588
      right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is more than capable of dealing with him on those matters.

      STAFF, DOWNING STREET (WAGES)
      Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Minister by what percentage the staff at Downing Street and the wages paid to them have increased or decreased since the Government introduced a productivity, prices and incomes policy.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio to a Question by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on 26th January.—[Vol. 794, c. 266.]
      Mr. Taylor: Since that answer shows that the staff of Downing Street has increased by 43 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that the salary bill has increased by 105 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and in view of the fact that the White Paper called for manpower to be used more effectively, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he has set a very bad example to industry when this has coincided with the worst period of Government this century?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's Question refers to prices and incomes and productivity. The productivity has gone up 500 per cent.
      Mr. Molloy: Does the Prime Minister not realise that hon. Gentlemen opposite indulge in this form of juvenile drivel, put in the form of a Question by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), to conceal their chagrin and annoyance at the improved balance of payments situation and the remarkable improvement in exports from Great Britain which annoy them so much?
      The Prime Minister: I must disagree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his question. I always enjoy the Questions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), whom we all know to be a highly intelligent and sincere Member of this House.
      With regard to that part of my hon. Friend's question on what he calls the

      589
      Tory chagrin about the balance of payments and the export figures, one of the least attractive features of my hon. Friend is his willingness to intrude into private grief.

      RACE RELATIONS (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
      Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will transfer from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Security the responsibility for race relations matters.
      The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by him on 5th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 620.]
      Mr. Fraser: In view of the incredible suggestions of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that over half a million people, including the Southern Irish, could be deported voluntarily with a bribe of £2,000 per head, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has had representations to transfer responsibility jointly to the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport?
      The Prime Minister: Naturally, I will consider this novel suggestion. I think that I have the purport of my hon. Friend's question. It would not be the Ministry of Transport. Overseas travel is the responsibility of the shipping and aviation departments of the Board of Trade, which are also responsible for cross-channel traffic across the Irish Sea.
      Dr. Winstanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members feel that the Department administering the National Health Service and spending an immense amount of public money thereon should be represented in this Chamber by a senior Minister of Cabinet rank, that there is considerable anxiety about the mixture of Health with another Department, and that we would greatly regret the heaping of a still further Department on to Health?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have perceived that the head of the combined Department of Health and Social Security is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has been a member—
      Dame Irene Ward: He is no use.
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady tempts me to remind the House who were the last two Tory Ministers of Health—the present Chairman of the Tory Party, whom we do not see today, and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is a very senior member of the Cabinet.

      SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS
      Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister how many Government Departments carry out scientific experiments on human beings; on what basis such persons are selected; and what general instructions are issued to the Departments concerned on the safeguarding of the health and wellbeing of all individuals subject to such experimentation.
      The Prime Minister: Any Government Department may from time to time undertake scientific research involving human beings as subjects, in accordance with the volunteer principle referred to in my reply of 10th February. It is the responsibility of the Minister in charge of the Department concerned to ensure that there are fully adequate safeguards for the health and well-being of those taking part.—[Vol. 795, c. 324.]
      Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend had time to inquire in detail into the monstrous accusation made recently by a reverend gentleman in the Lowlands of Scotland about the Government putting to death certain old people after experimentation? Will he give a categorical denial to that, if it is necessary, because it has caused considerable unnecessary alarm amongst old people in Scotland and elsewhere?
      The Prime Minister: If the case to which my hon. Friend refers is the one that I have in mind, he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Equipment told him on 30th January that these allegations are completely without foundation. I have been into the matter further since my hon.

      591
      Friend tabled his Question. I am glad to say that, after very full inquiries, I can confirm that these stories are wholly untrue.
      Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of paying tribute to those who voluntarily submit themselves to experiments designed to ensure the safety of the nation?
      The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has put that question. Those who volunteer—and I emphasised in my original answer that they must be volunteers or this could not happen—deserve the highest praise from this House. That applies not only to those to whom the hon. Gentleman refers but to many others who are willing to make themselves vulnerable to various rather unpleasant diseases from the common cold upwards and who do it voluntarily for the sake of the health of their fellow citizens.

      HOUSING
      Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the decline in the housing programme, he will take immediate action to co-ordinate the activities of the Ministers of Housing and Public Building and Works to ensure that top priority is once more given to building homes for the people.
      Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of his latest meeting with the National Economic Development Council, he will take steps to improve the co-ordination of Ministers concerned with housing and the building trade.
      Mr. Hefferasked the Prime Minister if, following the drop in the number of houses and flats being built, he will take steps to co-ordinate the activities of the Ministers of Housing and Public Building and Works to improve the housing programme.
      The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) on Tuesday.—[Vol. 796, c. 95.]
      Mrs. Short: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the A.M.C. submitted written
      592
      evidence to a Committee of this House in which it indicated that by 1974 almost 80 of the larger housing authorities will have stopped building? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that does not include the rurals and urbans which have not started new programmes since they took over from their Labour predecessors? Is it not high time that my right hon. Friend brought together these two Ministries with a view to setting up a housing building corporation so that the housing programme can be retrieved and we can build houses for the millions of people who are looking for homes to rent?
      The Prime Minister: I am aware of evidence referred to by my hon. Friend. We are well aware of some of the dangers to which she draws attention, and we intend to deal with them. There is a housing building corporation, as she has in mind, but certainly I do not believe that the answer would be to amalgamate the Ministries concerned. My right hon. Friends are very closely involved in all matters affecting the housing and construction industries.
      Mr. Marten: Does the Prime Minister recall that in this House recently my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) reminded us of the Prime Minister's pre-election pledge that Labour would plan the bricks? In view of the chaotic state of affairs in the brick industry, can the Prime Minister say to what sort of planning he referred?
      The Prime Minister: I am aware of the debate, when this matter was fully discussed and fully answered. The House is aware of the reasons why I and others are disappointed about progress in housing. However, I am more concerned at the fact that it is Conservative policy, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ever get in—[Interruption.] This is their declared policy—[Interruption.] While we are not satisfied, it appears to be their declared policy to cut back—[Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear it, but they are going to hear a lot of this—[Interruption.] It appears to be their declared policy—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only a quarter of an hour for Questions to the Prime Minister. Noise wastes a lot of time.
      The Prime Minister: As I was saying, it is their declared policy to cut back substantially on the present council house building programme. What that will mean for bricks as well as for people who are in need of homes, the House knows.
      Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend look again at this question of amalgamating the construction side of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with the Ministry of Public Building and Works so that we can develop a public building corporation so that local Tory councils which are holding back in their housing programmes can have their programmes augmented by Government action in order to meet the needs of the people?
      The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend and I have neighbouring constituencies, I know what he has in mind. I have many times considered the amalgamation of two Departments—most recently last autumn, when I felt on broader grounds that it was right to have together the Ministries of Housing and Local Government and Transport. However, my right hon. Friends work closely together here. Any amount of Ministerial co-ordination will not deal with problems of original sin in Tory-controlled councils.
      Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that the object of the policy of this side of the House is to concentrate local authority building on those who most need it, especially old people and those who are not able to pay the sort of rents that they would have to pay outside? That is the purpose of the policy—[Interruption.] He has no right to draw the conclusions that he has—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear both sides.
      Mr. Heath: Secondly, when the Prime Minister says how disappointed he is at the failure of the Government's housing policy, may I ask whether the solemn pledge to build half a million houses by 1970 was based on the calculation of the number of houses needed or on the number which the Government said they could build?
      The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, the right hon. Gentle-
      594
      man has said today what I heard and saw him say on television two or three weeks ago; namely, that they intend to concentrate council housing on the three—
      Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: It was a very good programme.
      The Prime Minister: —the right hon. Gentleman obviously appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, too—on the three categories that he mentioned. But since I understand that it is his policy to cut the council house subsidy by £100 million—that is, by about three-quarters of the present level—and since his spokesman on housing, whose statement he has been asked to repudiate, and he has not done so, has made very clear that there will be a sharp cut-back in council house building, I am not impressed by what he is trying to tell the House—[Interruption.] I will deal with the second part of the question in a moment.
      When the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said that he hoped that Conservative councils will take great care to resist the temptation to go on building council houses for all kinds of seemingly good purposes, and went on to chide Tory housing chairmen for trying to build more houses than Labour housing chairmen, I took that as Tory policy to cut council house building. If the right hon. Gentleman will repudiate that statement, I shall be ready to accept his repudiation. He has had many chances.
      I answered the last part of the question when I announced the housing cuts following devaluation in January, 1968.
      Mr. Heath: I completely reject the Prime Minister's—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Heath: I completely reject the Prime Minister's unjustifiable conclusion that in concentrating on the groups of people who need local authority housing we are thereby going to slash local authority building. It is essential that it should go to those groups who need it, not all kinds of other people whom the Prime Minister might think should have it.
      The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is repudiating his hon. Friend's statement, which I have quoted, I hope he

      595
      will get up and say so. If not, we will take that statement as being official Conservative policy. If the right hon. Gentleman is repudiating his hon. Friend's statement and saying that there will be just as many or more council houses but concentrated on priority groups, he had better explain how he expects to get them if he is going to cut the council house subsidy from £130 million to £100 million.
      Mr. J. T. Price—
      Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. You referred this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we have only 15 minutes for Prime Minister's Questions. This is the third consecutive occasion when the Prime Minister has been confronted with questions which he does not like, on which he has started referring—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear this interesting point of order.
      Sir A. V. Harvey: The Prime Minister then refers to Conservative policy. Surely we need more protection in the few minutes available to get information from the Prime Minister. We never get it.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I have never known a Prime Minister in my 20 years in Parliament who was afraid of Question Time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and who answered questions one way because he did not like to answer them the other way. This is, and always has been, a matter for the Prime Minister. It is not a real point of order. Mr. Price.
      Mr. J. T. Price: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in 1957, when the then Conservative Government were forcing through this House the Rent Act which has been condemned by every responsible authority knowing anything about housing since that time, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who was then acting as Man Friday Ito Mr. Henry Brooke, said that once a free market in housing was restored by the removal of control there would be no shortage of housing? That was 13 years ago. If we had taken notice of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West this country would be in deeper water than it is today—[Laughter.]
      The Prime Minister: I can understand right hon. Gentlemen opposite wanting to
      596
      try to laugh away the Tory Rent Act. But I remember the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about election pledges, but I remind them that they gave a firm pledge in 1955 that they would not alter the rules in the way that they did by the Tory Rent Act. However, they have another opportunity. In view of their declared belief in a free-for-all for housing, I have asked the Tory leadership to confirm that they will not reintroduce—if they ever get the chance—the Tory Rent Act of 1957, but will accept our repeal of it in 1964–65.
      Hon. Members: Answer.
      Mr. Thorpe: If it is not indelicate to return to the actual Question on the Order Paper and provided that I do not run any risk of starting my own election expenses, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, since local authority house building is accepted by most of us—or some of us—to be a social service, instead of juggling around Ministries, as has been suggested, he agrees that the best thing that he could do would be to relieve the building industry in this sector of the incidence of S.E.T.?
      The Prime Minister: On the question of S.E.T., I must give the right hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave to Question No. 1: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
      I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that amongst all civilised people housing is a social service; and housing, publicly owned and built, has been accepted by civilised people as such a social service since the days not only of Arthur Greenwood but also of John Wheatley. It is now clear that the Tories intend to go back before the days of Greenwood and Wheatley.

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. Frederick Peart): Yes Sir. The business for next week will be as follows.

597
MONDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the White Paper on Britain and the European Communities, (Command No. 4289).
Lords Amendments to the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY—Supply [14th Allotted Day]:
Conclusion of the debate on Britain and the European Communities.
Motion on the Drivers' Hours (Passenger Vehicles) (Modifications) Order.
THURSDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Local Authority Social Services Bill.
Motions on the Double Taxation Relief (Trinidad and Tobago) Order and on the Income Tax Transitional Relief Orders.
FRIDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 2ND MARCH—Second Reading of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill.
The House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that we should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 26th March, until Monday, 6th April.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House tell us when he will provide time for a debate on the Green Paper on the National Health Service?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific date, but very soon.
Mr. Heath: Before the Easter Recess?
Mr. Peart: I will examine this, but I cannot be specific. I believe that there should be a debate, but I cannot be specific. We will have talks through the usual channels.
Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend say when there will be a debate on the Defence White Paper? Will he take into account the fact that the House
598
will want rather more time than hitherto in view of President Nixon's speech last night, which set out some new developments in American defence policy?
Mr. Peart: There will be the usual two-day debate. I hope that the House will be able to study all the documents. It will be all right: my hon. Friend need not worry.
Mr. Thorpe: Is it the Government's intention that the House will be given an opportunity to take note or otherwise of the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in England?
Mr. Peart: I should have thought that it would be sensible to take note.
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. No one heard the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peart: I am sorry. It is not my fault that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear. I said that I thought that it would be reasonable to take note.
Mr. Thorpe: Do we take it from that that there will be a debate?
Mr. Peart: We were talking about yesterday's debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious about the debate on the European Communities.
Mr. Thorpe: With great respect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one question, even from right hon. Gentlemen. I have allowed two from the right hon. Member.
Mrs. Renée Short: Has my right hon. Friend now considered the possibility of the debate on the Select Committee's Report on Coloured School Leavers? When are we likely to have it?
Mr. Peart: I am dealing with next week's business and I cannot give any specific promise.
Mr. Turton: In view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate on the White Paper on Britain and the European Economic Communities, would the right hon. Gentleman consider suspending the rule on Tuesday for one or two hours so as to give more opportunity?
Mr. Peart: Yes. I think that we can have a discussion through the usual channels on this matter.
Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the white-hot anger of the employees, may we expect a statement during the coming week from the Government about their derisory enhanced redundancy pay announcement in respect of the Beagle Aircraft Company?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give a promise on that.
Mr. Ramsden: Why do we have the Defence Estimates, but no announcement about the new rates of Service pay, which, I understand, will cost a considerable sum of money? When can the House and the Services expect to have this information?
Mr. Peart: I hope very soon.
Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the recent developments, may we have an assurance that before the Government announce their reaction to the proposals of the Select Committee's Report on Members' Interests (Declaration), we will ensure that the House has a full opportunity of debating that report?
Mr. Peart: I will consider that, but I am often chided, when a matter like this is discussed, for not giving leadership on this question.
Mr. Worsley: About the debate on the Health Service Green Paper, which the right hon. Gentleman has promised, will he give an undertaking that he will arrange a debate on this before Thursday's business goes into Committee, since the two are so closely related?
Mr. Peart: Yes, I will consider that.
Mr. Dickens: While bearing in mind that the House had a debate of sorts on broadcasting before the Christmas Recess, in view of the unprecedented outbreak of B.B.C. staff criticism about the corporation's future policy for sound radio, could the House not have an early debate on the whole question of sound broadcasting?
Mr. Peart: I cannot promise a debate next week, but I will note what has been said.
Mr. Dance: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion No. 139, relating to vicious television programmes?
[That hon. Members of this House are appalled at the film shown on BBCI on
600
Sunday evening, 15th February, 1970, because of the viciousness, savagery and brutality, which the producer described as a "comic strip", but which showed rape, beatings, flagellation, atrocities against the Jews and was an affront to those who believe in the Christian religion; and calls upon the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to institute an inquiry as to who was responsible for this programme and to stop this so-called "entertainment" for the future.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will make a statement about this in the House?
Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion, but matters of programme content are the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities. I will convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend.
Sir Dingle Foot: In view of the recent Israeli aggression against the civilian population of Egypt, is it not a matter of urgency that we should debate the situation in the Middle East in the near future? Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements accordingly?
Mr. Peart: No, I cannot promise a debate on this matter.
Sir D. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman yet tell us the Government's intentions with regard to a debate on the Beeching Report and the Report on the Interpretation of Statutes?
Mr. Peart: I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I will consider this sympathetically.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend so alter the business for next week as to provide time for a debate on my Motion No. 143, dealing with a very important point of law, condition precedent to the debate on Monday on the Brighton Corporation Bill?
[That this House deprecates and rejects, as in breach of statute, the action of the Chairman of the Town Poll meeting held, in pursuance of statute, in Brighton for the purpose of considering, statutory words, the forthcoming Brighton Corporation Bill, in ruling that no questions from the floor or elsewhere would be allowed and in acting on that ruling

601
throughout the meeting; further expresses the view that the meeting so conducted and so limited did not and could not consider, according to statute, the elect of the Bill on the people, the trade, industry, employment, safety and residential amenities of the rich and poor of Brighton or of the rival town of Kemp Town about two miles from Brighton which would result from the Bill and on the old persons homes, nursing homes, schools, protective fire brigade station and other amenities and facilities already at Kemp Town and on the resulting dangers from increased traffic, from fire and from other consequential risks, and also that the Chairman's refusal to allow answers to questions on these and other relevant dangers to life, limb and property was a breach of statute law which breach made that meeting abortive and it should be so declared by this honourable House; and further recommends that any such question arising on the construction of the relevant statute should be referred to Mr. Attorney General, and that in the meantime the Bill should not be further considered by this honourable House.]
It is very important that this point of law, as to the construction of the word "consider", should be dealt with before the debate takes place—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not argue the merits of the very interesting debate which he wants to have.
Mr. Peart: I have seen that Motion, but my hon. and learned Friend must know that the Government are not responsible for the conduct of Brighton Corporation's meetings. I cannot foresee time being available to debate that Motion.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Will you allow me to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this matter involves a matter of legal construction of a word that is very important to the people of Brighton, and which should be determined before the Brighton Corporation Bill is debated?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was seized of the point the first time that the hon. and learned Gentleman made it. It is a point which he will no doubt make in the debate if the Leader of the House gives him time for a debate.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the debate next Tuesday and Wednesday, and the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic attitude thereto, will he ask his Ministerial colleagues to refrain from taking up time with Ministerial statements on those two days?
Mr. Pearl: I will consider this, but often it is necessary for a Minister to make an important statement which the House would like to have.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 127 in my name and the names of several hon. Members, calling for an early debate on air safety?
[That this House, concerned that since 1963 there have been 93 air-miss incidents over British air space, and aware that flight congestion continues to increase, calls for an urgent and immediate debate into the whole question of air safety.]
Would he name a day very soon when the whole House will be able to discuss this most important subject?
Mr. Peart: Not next week, but I will note what my hon. Friend has said.
Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman will not need telling that the Parliament of Malta has been made fully aware in the Press there of all the reasons for the breakdown and the deadlock in the negotiations on aid from this country. May we have a statement next week so that we Members of Parliament can eventually be told what everyone else knows already?
Mr. Pearl: I will convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Howie: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the question of air traffic control, especially in view of the developments of the Euro-control system?
Mr. Pearl: I am aware that this is an important matter. I said that I would note what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity next

603
week to debate the effect of today's defence statement on Scotland, particularly on Perth, where it will cost the city 500 jobs in addition to the 1,300 already lost under this Government?
Mr. Peart: I will convey the hon. Member's views, but no debate next week.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: May I press my right hon. Friend about his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on Members' interests? Can he give an assurance that the Select Committee's Report will be debated before the House rises for the Easter Recess?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific assurance on the date, but I would like to see the report debated and the Government to have an opportunity to express their opinion.
Mr. David Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a debate on the Industrial Relations (Improvement) Bill, in view of the record number of industrial disputes?
Mr. Peart: No, I cannot accede to that.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), would my right hon. Friend consider the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by more than 100 hon. Members, calling for a debate and for the setting up of a Royal Commission on the whole of the communications media?
[That this House, having regard to the difficulties and problems facing the communications media of this country, believes that a Royal Commission should be set up to examine the newspaper industry, radio and television transmission, and the On industry, with terms of reference to include what steps the Government or bodies set up by the Government should take for the avoidance of monopoly and for the protection and expansion of variety of ownership, influence and control in all areas, and especially in that of the free and various dissemination of news, views and debate, and that the terms of reference should also include a recommendation that the Royal Commission should examine the communications media of other countries and should make recommendations on the role of advertising in these media and on what
604
steps should be taken to prevent the further reduction in the number of newspapers nationally and locally and to facilitate the establishing and financing of new and independent channels of communication, especially newspapers.]
If a debate is to take place, will he bear in mind that Motion and the request that the debate should be widened to cover the whole field?
Mr. Peart: I have carefully noted all the Motions on the Order Paper, but I cannot promise time for a debate.
Dame Joan Vickers: As Thursday's debate is based on the Seebohm Report, which is important, and which makes fundamental changes in the social services, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can provide extra time for that debate?
Mr. Peart: I think that a whole day for a Second Reading debate is adequate. I agree that this is an important debate, but I think that hon. Members will he able to find time to make their points.
Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week I asked whether he would give extra time for the debate on local government reform, and he declined to do so, although in the event, at the beginning of yesterday's debate, Mr. Speaker had to say that no fewer than 35 Members wished to take part in the debate?
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore pay a little more attention to the representations of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and other back benchers, and a little less to the representations which he receives from the Chief Whips, who are obviously totally out of touch with back bench opinion?
Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks about two of our colleagues are unfair. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I wrote to him explaining why I could not give time. I received no representations other than from him on this matter. I think that the time for next week is sensible.
Mr. Ridsdale: May I press the right hon. Gentleman again about Services pay? Does he realise that there is great uncertainty in the Services about this,

605
and that it is not good enough to say "very soon". What does "very soon" mean?
Mr. Peart: Soon.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be going backwards on this subject, from "very soon" to "soon". In view of its importance, may I ask for an undertaking that a statement will be made before the debate on the White Paper on Defence, including the total cost? It is important that we should have the details before the debate, and not have to wait until the Secretary of State's statement in the debate.
We on this side of the House would welcome extra time on the first day of the debate on Europe.
Mr. Pearl: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his views on the European debate. On the other matter, I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend. I understand why hon. Members feel strongly about this.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

DECIMALISATION
3.53 p.m.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the system of decimalisation of the currency to which Her Majesty's Government has committed this country.
Although we deliberately drew this Motion in wide terms so that any number of matters could properly be discussed, this debate can properly be called the S.O.S.—Save our Sixpence—debate, for during the last few hours, in particular, there have been signs, first, of distress, and, second, of surrender by the Government on this matter. I need hardly say that I welcome this very much indeed. I welcome the surrender as much as I deplore the method, that of selective Press leaks, which the Government have adopted, and which I believe to be profoundly discourteous to the House.
I think that it would be convenient to the House to say now that if the Minister's speech follows the leak, if I can put it that way, I shall be content for the Motion either to be withdrawn, or to be negatived, and I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide in due course, because virtually the whole of my speech is, and was planned to be, on the case of the sixpence.
I spend a minute or two only on the background which, although it is not possible to reverse, is, of course, even more important than the question of the sixpence itself. On the Second Reading of the main Bill, on 22nd March, 1967, I declared myself to be, and I still am, an unrepentant ten-bobber. What the House then did was against the advice of virtually the whole of the Press of the country, against the advice of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., against the advice of the trading organisations, against the experience of every other country in the world, including those closest to us, and even those with most effection for the £ sterling, and it would have been, beyond argument, against the advice of this House if only a

607
free vote—and on looking back I think that we must all regret that it was not—had been allowed at that time.
The case which was allowed to prevail in the end was basically the international case, a case which was destroyed six months later by the devaluation of the £ when, with parity at 2·40, and 240d. to the £, we could say that the penny looked the cent. proudly in the face.
I make only one quotation, very brief indeed, from my speech then. I had reviewed the various systems adopted all over the world, and I said:
"However, the House should note that the Government proposal is none of these. It is neither two-decimal nor three-decimal. It is a £/penny fraction system. The truth, I am afraid, is quite simple, but once one has taken it in, the conclusion is inescapable: the £ is too heavy to decimalise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1967; Vol. 743. c. 1752.]
I believe that to have been the true verdict then, and that it is the true verdict now.
I turn to the question of the sixpence, on which there has been a very remarkable conversion. Only two days ago, on Tuesday, the Minister of State, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), who asked him whether he was willing to consider keeping the sixpence, replied:
"…we have made clear in the past our view about the likely future of the sixpence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1970; Vol. 796, c. 193.]
Indeed the Government have, and the clearest expression of view came during the Report stage of the second Decimal Currency Bill, when the Financial Secretary spoke these immortal words:
"The fact is that there is nothing that the Government can do to stop the 6d. from going out of circulation. What would be the result if we were to accede to the arguments which have been advanced tonight and were to say, 'We will see whether or not the sixpence proves to be unpopular.'? The result would be likely to be confusion and frustration and a bringing of discredit on to the new decimal currency system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1904.]
It is precisely that which I understand we are to do this afternoon. Nobody will be surprised, if I may say so in all good humour, that the Government have swapped their speakers, and that instead of the Financial Secretary eating those
608
words the Minister of State is to come to the Box today and eat them for him in a few minutes.
The fact is that the tanner has shown a quite astonishing capacity to survive, in particular over the last year. During the Second Reading of the second Bill on 30th January, everyone who spoke on this subject, including a former Minister of State, the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts), and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), now in the Government, said that they wanted to keep the sixpence. The Tories and the Liberals took the same view, and I must, if I may, pay a tribute here, as those who have studied these matters will acknowledge to be well-deserved, to the person who, above all others, has relentlessly urged this case, "Mr. Sixpence" himself, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
The Bill went upstairs. There was a fascinating debate in Committee, at the end of which the vote was tied. In accordance with custom, the Chairman declared himself for the Bill, so the sixpence was out. But a few moments later another vote on the Clause deleted the Clause by one vote, so the sixpence was back in. It came to the Floor of the House. The Government moved to put the Clause back in and then they defeated, on a vote, another move to reinstate the sixpence. Then it went to the House of Lords. The House of Lords, on 1st May, 1969, re-established the sixpence only to lose it again on Report. Now we come to what everyone hopes is the last round in this song of sixpence.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: While not in any way quarrelling with the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), would not he also, at the same time, wish to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), who was the first hon. Member to raise this matter in the House?
Mr. Macleod: Gladly, and if I may say so in this atmosphere the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), too, who has fought for the same cause. I meant to indicate that there was pressure from many people.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray).
Mr. Macleod: And the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray). I do not mind. So long as the Government give way, who cares who gets the credit?
I come to one of the important matters with which I hope one or other of the Ministers will deal. I am suggesting that we should keep the tanner as a 2½p piece, not for all time but for a considerable time ahead. We should not, in my view drop the 2p piece. I am told that come Decimalisation Day, which is 15th February next year, 3,400 million bronze coins will have been minted and possibly a substantial number of others; and a considerable number of them will be the 2p piece.
There are some difficulties and one should state them. It is said, first, that to have a 2p piece and a 2½p piece, or tanner perhaps, for the purpoes of this debate, would be to have in our future coinage coins which are too near together in value. I do not accept that argument. We got on happily with the half-crown and the florin; and I personally regret the disapperance of the half-crown very much. But it is a point of interest that the difference between the half-crown and the florin—which is sixpence—is precisely one quarter of the value of the lower coin, the florin. In the case of the 2p and 2½p coins the difference between the two is precisely one quarter of the value of the lower coin. I feel, therefore, that this argument, although it was put forward, does not stand up.
There is, secondly, the case that the coin may fall into disuse as the 3d. bit, called the "ticky", did in the South African 10-bob system. But the 3d. bit, even in South Africa, lasted six years and I would hope that our more popular tanner will last considerably longer.
The third point—and this is by far the most important, and I referred to it in a speech on Second Reading in 1967—is that it is, of course, technically unsound to import a fraction into our system. It is quite true that there is a fraction there already because, the £1 being so heavy, it has been necessary to have a pound, penny, halfpenny system. We will then have two coins, the tanner and the halfpenny, both which fall outside a true
610
decimal range and both of which are fractions.
The best answer—I cannot prophesy about this, for it depends, among other things, on the rate of inflation in this country—would be for the halfpenny to be demonetised when the time comes and the other fractional coin might go at the same time. I do not guess how many years that might be, but at least then we would have a more flexible system than we have at present. I want to put two questions to the Financial Secretary, because he will have a little more time before he speaks. Will he tell the House what is the state of play about the minting of the tanner? As I understand it is not being minted at the moment, but 85 million were minted during the first six months of 1969. Will the Government tell us what are their intentions? Do they intend to carry on with the tanners we have, to mint a new tanner or a 2½p piece which would have the same value in the coinage?
Another question to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary: what is to be the position about accounts? When the original Bill went through, and we discussed the halfpenny, it was said then that the banks were not to have the halfpenny as an accounting unit. The difficulty, even with the halfpenny—and it is much more important with the tanner—is that it is wholly desirable that the banking system and commercial accounts should agree whenever possible. If there is time tonight—if not, perhaps it could be done through a Question in the House or in some other way—I would like a Minister to tell us what the banking practice will be, assuming the tanner is kept.
I turn to the arguments against, and I intend now to be very brief. The arguments which I have stated are, in a sense, arguments for the Government's case as adopted until today. The argument against them, which, I am happy to say, seems to have prevailed, can be boiled down simply to one phrase: the effect on the cost of living of the disappearance of the tanner. The item that has caused most interest has been the question of the London Transport fares. There has perhaps been an impression that this has been raised fairly recently.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: And telephones.
Mr. Macleod: Yes, telephones too, and many other things. But it is this one that has caused most anxiety. The Greater London Council were very much "on the ball" on this matter. Though I do not propose to quote it all, I have a letter from Mr. Desmond Plummer to Lord Fiske, Chairman of the Decimal Currency Board, dated 11th July, 1968, quite a long time ago, drawing his attention, among other things, to the absence of a coin between 2p and 5p and the consequent difficulties that would follow.
On the more general question of the cost of living, I propose to read a reference at one end of the scale and then a reference at the other end. This is from a lady whom I do not know and who is the owner of a guest house in Greenwich Park. She writes:
"The guests' rooms have coin meters for the heating of the rooms where necessary. These are 6d. and penny slot and some are just a shilling, but not many. I am only one of thousands who are in the postion of owning these heaters but I am told by the Electricity Board that it will be my responsibility to pay for the conversion. This I think is scandalous and I am writing to the Board to say so. There is also the telephone box which is in this building and the 6d. piece is high enough for short calls."
This lady goes on to say:
"I have 18 rooms with meters and I have not got the extra money to find for something I did not vote for and never would. This has been forced on the public whether they want it or not."
It is a fair illustration of what I might call the small-change argument that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been receiving in their postbags. The only other illustration I take is from the Multiple Shops' Federation, which represents about 400 multiple retailers, 47,000 shops and 33 per cent. of all retail trade
The federation said in its arguments at the time, when the matter was considered in the House of Lords:
"Perhaps the strongest argument against the premature withdrawal of the 6d. is that it is bound to lead to inflationary increases in prices. It is argued that manufacturers and retailers will have pricing structures which will avoid 2½p. If this is true it may well result in an inflationary move to prices of 3p."
On the important question of giving change, the federation said:
"Apart from the inflationary effect of abolishing the 6d. too soon, our belief as shopkeepers, on whom will fall the brunt of introducing the new system to the public, is
612
that the 6d. coin will be a considerable aid to transactions in shops. The principle of 'good change-giving' is to use as few coins as possible, and the 2½p coin would avoid the need for giving three coins."
The arguments used by the Financial Secretary, then the Minister of State, in Committee, were that experiments had shown that the 2½p piece would be inconvenient. Those experiments were conducted by Dr. Sheila Jones and I have not the slightest doubt that they were expertly and skilfully carried out. I merely observe that I prefer the views of those who run 33 per cent. of all retail trade, apart from the views of about 10 million housewives, who, I am certain, are in favour of keeping the tanner.
It is curious that although it is beyond argument that the Government had planned the disappearance of the sixpenny piece—it would, of course, have been there for the changeover period—the documents put forward by the Decimal Currency Board are dominated by—one might almost say obsessed with—the sixpenny piece. For example, we read, in heavy print, in the board's booklet:
"These low-value coins should be used only in multiples of 6d. or 2½3 in establishments working in the other currency."
That was an odd instruction to give about a coin that it was intended should disappear as soon as the change-over period was completed.
Another point from the same booklet arises from the conversion tables on page 16. They give an approximate conversion for each of our present pennies, from 1d. to 11d., including, of course, the present 6d. It is suggested that five should be rounded up and five rounded down. The board is optimistic, I daresay, about that, but even if that were to happen, for 10 of those 11 pennies there is no precise comparison in the new coinage. For the 6d., however, there is, since 6d. converts precisely into 2½p, and it would be madness for us to let it go.
I am aware that these matters can be dealt with by proclamation under the 1870 Act and Section II of the 1967 Act, but it would be much better to have a clear declaration now. I hope, if the Minister gives it, that it will be clear that it will last for a considerable time. It is obviously important to reach finality in this matter; and at least there will be

613
no dispute between the two sides of the House about that. It is important for those who must change their machines to know what the position will be not just on 15th February next year, but for as far ahead after that as the Government can indicate today.
At the outset of my remarks I referred to some words of the Financial Secretary, when he said that there was nothing that the Government could do to stop the sixpenny piece from going out of circulation. Those words make a good introduction to this debate. I really believe that, for a change—after all, this does not happen often in the House of Commons—we can make almost everybody happy.
The Government will gain some credit for bowing to the public will. The credit will be shared throughout the House, but we should not forget that the matter was pressed most fiercely by my hon. Friends. Thus, the credit will go to those who argued this case for such a long time. I make it clear again that if my hon. Friends and I are satisfied—I expect that, on the whole, we will be satisfied with the Minister's statement—I would be content for our Motion to be either withdrawn or negatived.
I do not want to hack over old battle grounds, but I believe that the most disastrous mistake of this Parliament was the decision to use the unit which was finally accepted for the decimalisation of our currency. The fatal mistake we made at the time was not to listen to what I have previously called the collective wisdom of the House of Commons, which is a very real thing and which can run across parties. I very much hope that the Government will listen today to the collective wisdom of the House of Commons.
I have put the case for retaining the tanner as moderately as I can, and I believe it to be overwhelming. I invite the Government now to accept it.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Taverne. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Mr. Rodgers.
4.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I hope that you were not under a misapprehension, Mr. Speaker. I assure you and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) that there has been no change
614
in the batting order today. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary will feel any embarrassment in what he will have to say later, or, indeed, in what I may say now.
Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman chooses to withdraw his Motion is, clearly, for him alone to decide. For the moment, however, I must say "Wait and see" on the issue of whether he should believe all that he reads in the newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is nothing I wish to say today which is inconsistent with the carefully chosen words that I used last Tuesday, when the question of decimalisation arose at Question Time.
I do not for a moment dispute that decimalisation is a proper subject for the House to discuss at this stage. With a year to go to Decimalisation Day, it is right that we should examine progress and consider whether there are any special and hitherto unforeseen problems ahead. In that sense I welcome this debate and wish that we had more than half a day for it, especially as my speech cannot be short.
Despite the moderate terms used by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, I rather regret the attack which hon. Gentlemen opposite have chosen to make in their Motion because this should not be a sharp party issue but one to be faced calmly and responsibly in the light of our obligations to the public as a whole.
I remind the House, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, of what happened almost four years ago. On 1st March, 1966, my right hon. Friend who is now the Home Secretary announced in the House the decision to decimalise. There was hardly a squeak from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West will recall that when he wound up the debate for the Opposition on that day the word "decimalisation" did not once cross his lips. So much for vigilance. So much for foresight. So much for the public interest.
It was only at a much later stage that hon. Gentlemen opposite woke up to the fact that there were important considerations here; and it was then that they thought that they could obtain some advantage from them—apart, of course,

615
from the major issue on which it was proper to raise questions for discussion in the House.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that was a speech made on the economic situation as a whole and that there were several other things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced at that time, one at least of which, I remember, was never pursued after the election. We had no impression at that time that this or other matters would necessarily be pursued after the election.
Mr. Rodgers: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that defence. The plain fact is that the Chancellor made an important announcement and there are two columns of that announcement contained in HANSARD. There was a passing reference to it by the Leader of the Opposition and no reference at all in the winding-up speech. If this was an important issue it was not thought to be so when the initial announcement was made.
Mr. John Smith: It may be that the reason for that is that the idea of decimalisation was propounded by this party and put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in 1961, when he appointed the Halsbury Committee.
Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) has anticipated something which I intended to say in my speech. My point is simple, and if the Opposition do not like it they will have to lump it. When the initial announcement was made it was not thought a proper subject for serious debate in the House.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that when that subject was introduced it followed an announcement by the Chancellor that there would be no considerable increase in taxation? Was this not much more in the minds of hon. Members than any comment he might have made about decimalisation?
Mr. Rodgers: I am not discussing the proper order of priorities at that time. I am simply recording a fact. I am
616
anxious to make basically a non-partisan speech, because I think that this is a serious issue and I welcome this opportunity to examine it in the House. As the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster has said, it is true that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was responsible for the appointment of the Halsbury Committee, and we know that that committee reported during the period of Conservative Government. It was as a result of discussions which took place that we had the announcement by my right hon. Friend on 1st March, 1966 and then, as a consequence, the Acts of 1967 and 1969.
Since that date, and particularly during the past three years, planning has been going ahead. A great deal has been done not only in the banks, but in thousands of firms and other organisations up and down the country. The Decimal Currency Board has given help and advice in various ways, but it is the individual firms and other organisations that must do the hard and detailed work of planning. There has been no suggestion from any of them of serious difficulties. Planning for the changeover is now well advanced in both public and private sectors.
The board is working to a carefully phased publicity strategy which involved concentrating in the early years of the preparatory period on management and gradually widening the definition of management so that increasing attention was given to the problems of all those involved in handling cash and on whom the main initial burden will fall. It is the smoothness of everyday cash transactions in shops, in post offices and on the transport system by which the success of the change-over will largely be measured.
There is very close exchange of ideas and opinion between the board and the main trade and professional associations and with the industrial training boards. The board's engineering support group is in touch with the main companies responsible for both business and coin-operated machines and has satisfied itself, so far as is practicable, that the plans being made are technically sound and offer value for money to users. Progress generally with machine replacements and conversions is excellent.

617
During 1970, leaflets and posters will be available to the general public. There will be advertisements in the women's magazines and to help older people the board is to distribute a preliminary leaflet of basic information in question and answer form through social welfare organisations. The board's main general publicity effort, however, will come in the final six weeks before D-Day. It will be a massive campaign of information and explanation with widespread Press and television advertising and the cornerstone of the whole campaign will be the issue of a booklet through every letterbox in the United Kingdom. No one need fear that he or she will be unprepared for D-Day.
Provided that the small businessmen, who are tending to lag behind their bigger competitors, make full use of the remaining year to D-Day to make sensible plans for converting or replacing their essential machines and for informing and training themselves and their staff, and provided that the board, under the chairmanship of Lord Fiske and the deputy chairmanship of Lord Erroll, a former Member of this House, can enjoy the support, as I am sure they will, of hon. Members on both sides of the House, then I am convinced we can look forward to a very speedy and painless entry into the decimal era.
Mr. Lubbock: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman about the leaflet. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a cornerstone, not a leaflet."] May I ask the hon. Gentleman what professional advice he has taken about whether this is the best method of informing householders and the general public of the change-over and whether the money could not be spent better through the medium of television, and so on, with greater effect and with less expenditure?
Mr. Rodgers: The booklet will be issued by the Decimal Currency Board, which has had expert advice on the best way of publicising the change-over. I have been trying to simplify the full story of all the methods the board will use. There will be a booklet available to every household on the eve of decimalisation. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) or any other hon. Gentlemen have particular suggestions they will be welcomed, because it is common cause that the decision having been made, it should be presented
618
in a fully comprehensible manner which is acceptable to those who will be affected.
Let me make it clear that I am not saying there will be no problems, no hitches and no difficulties. There are bound to be problems, not least because a clean overnight switch to decimal currency working on the part of the entire country is impossible. That is why we shall have a change-over period of dual currency working. Nor would I deny that there will be some problems arising as a result of the system to which we shall be changing over. We have always recognised these and they were considered by the Halsbury Committee and were debated in the House in 1967 when the first Decimal Currency Act was being considered. As against this, there are—
Sir John Langford-Holt: That was not the first Decimal Currency Bill. The first was 10 years earlier, when I was one of the sponsors of a Private Member's Bill to that end.
Mr. Rodgers: I am glad to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), but it was the first which became a Statute which now binds us.
The only point that I am seeking to make is that, although we could argue at length about what might be the best system—the right hon. Member for Enfield, West is an unrepentent ten-bobber and others of us may have been in that camp—I am sure that now neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other right hon. or hon. Member would deny that, whatever form of decimal currency we went over to, there would be some problems in the change-over. Although one would hope that a change to any new system would be smooth, it would involve a degree of adjustment to which people would have to become accustomed.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, irrespective of the circumstances in which the decision was made in this House, the question whether the decimal unit was based on a pound or ten shillings was essentially a cross-bench issue upon which it was perfectly legitimate to have different views based on technical and other qualifications.
I want now to turn to the question of prices, because this lies behind the problem of the sixpence which has been so much under consideration in recent days.

619
Not all prices expressed in the old currency will have to be converted on D-Day. Some of them, convert exactly, but others will need to be changed either on D-Day itself or during the change-over period.
The Government's policy towards the conversion of prices to decimal currency amounts was made absolutely clear over a year ago in the White Paper, "Decimal Currency: the Change-Over". Both the Government and the Decimal Currency Board have consistently said that, where it is necessary to change the price of goods and services as a result of the change to decimal currency, and particularly where retail prices are concerned, the rule should be to use the new halfpenny conversion table recommended by the Government and by the Decimal Currency Board.
This table, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, has been designed so that some prices go up on conversion to decimal currency and an equal number go down by the same amounts. This means that, over a wide range of prices, there is a balancing effect and there is no overall increase or decrease. Let me make this point quite clear. The conversion of prices to decimal currency means inevitably that there have to be a great many changes; some of these changes must be increases, but there should be decreases. If a representative selection of goods is taken in a grocery supermarket, for example, then there should be no increase in the size of the housewife's weekly shopping bill.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend seriously believe that firms selling articles at fairly small prices will cut their profit margins by reducing prices in this way? If he believes that, he will believe anything.
Mr. Rodgers: I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. I shall deal more fully with prices. Whether I convince him or not, there are other considerations which he may wish to bear in mind.
In the change-over to decimals, the Government consider it particularly important that the public sector should set a good example. It has been made clear to Government Departments that they are expected to follow the policy to the letter. The prices and charges of
620
nationalised industries and local authorities are the responsibility of the individual nationalised industries and local authorities. Many of them have still to take final decisions. But I will give the House just one example, which seems to have been overlooked, of action by a nationalised industry where the public will not suffer as a result of decimalisation, and this particular example is relevant also to the discussion about the sixpence.
The Post Office has decided that, when the coin-operated machines in its call boxes are converted, they will take the 2 new penny piece and the 10 new penny piece instead of the present sixpences, shillings and florins. The minimum cost of a call will go down from 6d. or 2½ new pence—as it is now, to 2 new pence, with a compensating adjustment of the length of the call. [Laughter.] Before hon. Members laugh, they should reflect that many people find the minimum charge extremely convenient for a short call and that they will find that they can make a short call for a smaller sum than hitherto. That is surely to the general convenience of the public.
I turn now to the private sector. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite will want to claim that the private sector will be less scrupulous than the public sector in this respect—in other words, whether they endorse the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). But I can tell the House now that such firms as Sainsburys, Marks and Spencer and Fine Fare have decided that when they go decimal—and they intend to do so either on D-Day or very soon afterwards—they will apply the officially recommended new halfpenny conversion table to all the prices in all their shops.
No doubt there are many firms, large and small, throughout the country, which have similarly decided on their policy. It could be advantageous to them, and reassuring to the public, if they were now to make their intentions plain. National firms should come forward with a clear declaration of policy; local firms should be pressed either by local newspapers or consumer organisations to declare their intentions. The public should know where their suppliers stand and be able to judge where to take their custom.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is the example which the Government expect them to follow that of the Post Office telephones, so that, if they cut prices downwards, they are expected to adjust quantity?
Mr. Rodgers: There are special problems with machines and that is the crux of the argument about the sixpence. What I am saying is that, on the basis of the conversion table, some prices may be adjusted upwards and some downwards, and I am asking for a plain declaration from those responsible, particularly for retail prices, that, as a result of these changes, there will be no overall increase in the prices of the goods which they put on sale to the housewife.
Mr. Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? Is the example they are expected to follow that which the Post Office is setting with telephone calls. If these shops round downwards, are they expected to alter the quantity?
Mr. Rodgers: It is not a question of rounding down in the case of the Post Office. If the shops round down, they are allowed to round up if they use the conversion table. The important thing is the result that there shall be no overall increase in prices. I am sorry that is not comprehensible to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), but there is a clear difference between the conversion of machines and retail prices in shops.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend says that he hopes the retailers will do this. If it is proved that they are not doing it, is there anything that he can or will do to prevent it?
Mr. Rodgers: That is a hypothetical question, since there is no question of their doing a rounding-up or a rounding-down before D-Day. What I have said, and surely this commends itself generally to the House, is that all possible steps should be taken to encourage retailers, the majority of whom are very reliable and play fair by their customers, not to increase their prices over all when the lime comes, and I believe that that will be the case.
No doubt a tiny minority will not play fair with the public and will blame on decimalisation an increase which would have happened anyway, or will use deci-
622
malisation as a pretext for an increase in prices. I cannot deny that that may sometimes happen, but, over all, I am sure that such firms will not fool the public. There may well be a special role for consumer organisations in this situation to help the customer ensure that he gets a fair deal.
Mr. Edwin Brooks: Many of us are not quite clear about the value of the declaration my hon. Friend the Minister of State seeks to obtain from suppliers. Is it the intention, for example, of the Government to carry out a sample survey following decimalisation which will at least establish what is happening? The point put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is, what can or will be done if there is a general increase.
Mr. Rodgers: After D-Day, not necessarily the Government direct but certainly the Decimal Currency Board will be looking very closely at what may have happened to prices. If it is found that the situation is not as I have described it, it may be necessary to consider what other steps should be taken. But it is misleading to imply in advance of decimalisation that this is likely to happen. I do not believe that it will.
I turn, therefore, to the question of the sixpence, set against the background of there being no reason at all why decimalisation should result in an increase in prices and thus in the cost of living, and that, in so far as there may be some abuse of the occasion, we would expect the results of that abuse to be negligible.
Let us be clear, first, because there have been misunderstandings on this, that there has never been any question of demonetising the sixpence before the end of the change-over Period. Like the present penny and threepenny bit, it will be legal tender and current coin for the duration of the changeover period. That is to say, after D-Day, the sixpence will remain with us for the time being.
Secondly, whether or not there is a single coin worth 2½ new pence makes no difference at all to the prices of goods and services sold over the counter. A coin worth II, new pence is not necessary to enable a new price of 2½ new pence to be paid. The decimal bronze coins will be worth 2½ new pence, I new penny. 1

623
new halfpenny. People will not need a sixpence to buy something worth sixpence over the counter; they will be able to use various combinations of the decimal bronze coins, of course, a larger denomination like the 5p coin, for which they will receive change.
Mr. Lubbock: May I give the hon. Gentleman an example?
Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry, but if anyone else is to contribute to the debate I must compress my remarks. I cannot, therefore, give way.
There is no reason why the absence of a 2½ new penny coin should make the slighest difference to these over the counter sales. Those who claim otherwise are misleading the public. If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has a different argument, no doubt if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will put it to the House.
Then there are goods and services sold through coin-operated machines. Compared with the total of all retail transactions, the sales of goods and services through vending machines is very small. The census of retail distribution for 1966 showed that sales through vending machines were 0·1 per cent. by value. Sales through machines operated by the 6d. were a fraction of that number. Most of these machines can be adjusted so that when the coin which operates them is changed there is a change in the value of goods and services sold.
I say this quite explicity about London Transport fares. There is no reason whatsoever, on decimalisation grounds alone, for fares to go up overall either on D-Day, during the change-over, or thereafter. If London Transport wants to adopt a fare structure based on 1s. stages for reasons of its own, this is not a matter for discussion in this debate. London Transport may have its own special problems, but they do not stem from our decision to go decimal, from the system adopted, or from the future of the sixpence. As the decision on Post Office telephone call-boxes shows, it is not the case that decimal bronze coins are unsuitable for use in coin-operated machines or that machines cannot be economically converted to take them.
It would certainly be inappropriate for me to give advice on fare denominations,
624
but there is no reason why the fare structure should not use 1p or 2p coins; they could be used in machines and machines could give them in change, just as they give other coins at present on London Transport. I gather that no firm decisions have yet been made by London Transport, but it will be for the Greater London Council eventually to decide what fare Londoners should pay—and to ensure that decimalisation is not taken as an excuse for any increase.
I hope that I have said enongh to show that the sixpence is not of particular importance so far as prices are concerned. Nevertheless, it can be argued that it would save the expense of converting machines and the conversion of prices of goods and services sold through machines if the sixpence were retained, at any rate until it had come to the end of its useful life. It is suggested that even though it is not to form a permanent part of the decimal coinage system, it could still be continued as a 2½ coin for a time after the end of the changeover period.
The Government's own view, which was explained in considerable detail by my hon. and learned Friend during the passage of the second Decimal Currency Bill last year, is that once the decimal coinage system is introduced the sixpence will, in fact, come very rapidly to the end of its natural life. It is not a necessary feature of the decimal coinage system, in addition to the new halfpenny, new penny and 2 new penny coins. Further more, it will not be a convenient feature of the decimal coinage system, because it does not follow that a coin which is useful and conventient in one system will be equally useful and convenient in another. A large number of countries have decimal currency systems, but very few indeed have a coin worth 2½ times the minor unit.
The Government believe that a coin worth 2½ new pence will not be a convenient coin in change giving. Experiments were carried out for the Halsbury Committee which indicated that the use of this coin in this way for change giving caused errors and delays. Further experiments carried out since have confirmed this and such organisations as the Retail Distributors Association have said that they are against its use in this way. Again, advice to cash handlers by such organisations as the Retail Alliance and the industrial training boards does not

625
suggest that it should be used as a 2½p coin in change giving once a shop has gone over to decimal currency.
Research that was carried out to decide how many decimal coins should be minted showed that the public get most of their coins in change, rather than in wage packets or by any other means. The majority of retail transactions involve change-giving. Coins circulate if people are given them in change; if they are not given them in change, they do not circulate. This is the reason why it has in the past often been difficult for people to get hold of shillings. The Government had minted plenty of shillings, and there were plenty in the banks; but there was no way of making them circulate if retailers did not draw them for change giving.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rodgers: No. I do not think I should give way, because I think the House is interested in the argument and in the conclusion of this part of my speech.
Since there is every indication that the sixpence will not be given in change in decimal shops, and since we already know that retailers will change over to decimal currency very soon after D-Day, it follows that the sixpence will not come into the pockets and purses of the public to anything like the same extent as it does now. It follows from this that during the changeover period the public may find that they have the same difficulty in getting hold of sixpences to use in coin operated machines as they used to have in getting hold of shillings.
If we are right in this, it would not be helpful to attempt to prolong its life after the end of the charge-over period. As I have said there is nothing the Government can do to make a coin circulate if it does not circulate naturally, and there is every indication that the sixpence would not circulate naturally as a 2½p coin. The consequence of purporting to be able to keep the sixpence in circulation after the end of the change-over period would be frustration and inconvenience for the public who could not get hold of them to use in machines, and loss of business for those who operate machines.
626
There is no question, therefore, of an arrogant decision to get rid of the sixpence against the overwhelming weight of public opinion. In the first place, the sixpence will remain legal tender throughout the transition period; secondly, our attitude towards its longterm future is based on a judgment about the extent to which it will prove a useful coin, convenient and in popular demand. We are not proposing bladly to abolish it against everyone's wishes. But the best judgment that we can make is that it will die a natural death because people will not in fact find it convenient to use. This is not just a matter of a Government decision; it is the best prediction that can be made of public habits and attitudes when we change over to the new system.
The problem with which we and everyone else who has to make decisions and commit money is faced is that predictions are one thing, and decisions are another. Some decisions have to be made now, and should not be postponed. Given our expectation that the 2½p will not in practice circulate during the change-over period, is it helpful to those who have to take decisions to know definitely either that the sixpence will be demonetised at the end of the changeover period or that it will continue as legal tender for a time after the end of the change-over—there being, of course, no guarantee that it will in practice circulate.
The Government have decided that this warrants further consideration. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking the Decimal Currency Board for an immediate reappraisal of the situation and an urgent report to be available by Easter in the light of recent comment—and no doubt what is said in this debate—and its own expert knowledge. The board is being asked to advise whether the decision that the sixpence should go at the end of the change-over period should stand, or whether there would be advantage in a decision now that it should continue as legal tender for 2½p for a time after the end of the change-over, so as to allow for full account to be taken of experience during the change-over and for the decision to be reviewed if that experience suggested our present judgment is mistaken. I have no doubt that those who are interested will make

627
their views known to the Decimal Currency Board without delay.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the Minister aware that it would be for the convenience of the House if I stated now that in view of that indecisive, insensitive and extremely weak statement we shall certainly seek to divide the House?
Mr. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman must be free, and is, to decide what is the proper course. I believe that, on reflection, he will realise that the future of the sixpence should not be a party matter.
Hon. Members: Free vote!
Mr. Rodgers: If, as the right hon. Gentleman has argued, it would be arrogant to go ahead in the face of public opinion with abolishing the sixpence, I would regard it as just as arrogant to make an arbitrary decision now without allowing all those most affected to express their opinions—
Mr. Michael Jopling: Take the Whips off.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rodgers: No. I was in the middle of a sentence, which I intend to complete.
If it would be arrogant, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, to say that despite public opinion as so far expressed we should not consider any possible change in policy it would be equally arrogant not to allow all those most affected, including the machine operators and the retail trade, to express their view. It would equally be arrogant and discourteous to the Decimal Currency Board not to allow it to report to my right hon. Friend to enable him to make whatever may be the right decision.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be committed by the statement he has just made, but to reflect a little longer on the precise terms of what I have said. I hope that he may take the view that in the light of what I have said the right course would be to allow opinions to be expressed and the evidence to be examined, and then to allow my right hon. Friend to make a decision with all the facts before him.
Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rodgers: No. I am sorry.
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. The debate has somewhat shifted. Therefore, I interrupt in this rather unusual way—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Atkinson: With respect, my point is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The announcement by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) that the party opposite is to vote presumably means that those voting in favour of the Motion are voting in favour of a new 2½p piece. That being so, may we have an assurance from the Government that those who vote against the Motion are not voting against the introduction of a new 2½p piece?
Mr. Rodgers: I admire my hon. Friend's skill, and only regret that I did not give way to him immediately. Certainly, I can give him that assurance.
I felt, when the Motion was put on the Order Paper, that it was mischievous and without merit. It would be very mischievous if, in view of what has been said, the right hon. Gentleman divides the House tonight. Even if he takes what I would regard as an irresponsible course, I hope that after today's debate the partisan spirit will subside for the sake of all those who are involved in, and those who will be affected by, decimalisation.
This is a momentous change, and one which both parties support in principle. We owe it to the country to help make the transition period as smooth as possible and free from unnecessary disputes.
Mr. Edward Heath: The Minister has constantly appealed to the House for a non-partisan spirit. Is not he aware that it was the present Home Secretary who steamrollered the matter through his own party upstairs and then put a three-line Whip on hon. Members opposite for the debate in the House? It is the Labour Party and the Government who have been partisan right from the beginning of decimalisation.
Mr. Rodgers: The question I was putting to the right hon. Gentleman's right

629
hon. Friend was whether, on reflection, and since views on the sixpence are different on both sides of the House, but in particular because of my undertaking, he would now consider it in the best public interest not to divide the House but to enable my right hon. Friend to consider all the evidence which has been put to him.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: I am surprised that this subject is proving so exciting. I remember calming an audience at Essex University by talking to them about decimal currency. But it is a very important subject, and we owe a great debt to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who started it all by setting up the Halsbury Committee.
I think that the Government have today announced the right non-decision to keep the sixpence for the time being, but I hope that it will not be kept for too long. The name "sixpence" will survive and be confusing. Moreover, the coin will be firmly labelled "sixpence", but worth 2½p. Mention has been made of slot machines; the sixpence will be far too near in size to the new penny for many coin operated machines.
Keeping the sixpence for any length of time will also mean keeping the new halfpenny long after it is unwanted simply to give change. The sixpence may well prove just as difficult to get out of circulation as the half-crown proved, and it will, therefore, perpetuate prices in fractions. I also hope that the Minister of State will not forget Mrs. Gregory and her experiments with the 40 male British bus conductors, set out in Appendix 8 of the Halsbury Report.
I have two main criticisms of the system to which we are committed. First, the weight of the cupro-nickel coinage is far too great for its value. We have, and shall have, too much avoirdupois in our pocket. The pound in our pocket weighs too much. Secondly, the 10s. coin is too near in size to the florin. These are two interconnected problems.
It is difficult to make an absolutely accurate comparison between the bulk of our new coinage and foreign currencies because these are seldom in a weight-value relationship in the way that ours is.
630
But taking an average handful of white metal change in different countries, our coinage will be 1¾ times as heavy as the American; 3½ times as heavy as the Swiss; seven times as heavy as the Belgian; 5¼ times as heavy as the German; and four times as heavy as the French. It will even be about three times as heavy as the coinage of good old Sweden, which the party opposite admires so much.
Moreover, all those countries have notes of a smaller value than £1. Having the 10s. coin increases the argument for lightening the florin, shilling and sixpence. Whereas previously one had two, three or four 10s. notes in one's wallet, one now has the extra weight in pocket or purse. When the bronze coinage has been lightened, the cupro-nickel will seem clumsier than ever. There are in circulation, in florins, shillings and sixpences, about 30,000 tons of cupro-nickel. The unfortunate people of the country are condemned to carting about in their trousers, or bags, the weight of a decent-sized Liberian tanker. These coins are increasingly too large and heavy for their very modest value.
On balance, the decision to leave the shilling and florin unchanged was right at the time. The 1966 White Paper says of these coins:
"…If the weight-value relationship stays there is little point in changing their specification, and thereby adding considerably to slot machine conversion costs. The retention of these familiar coins at familiar values will be of great help to the public during the changeover."
It would indeed be a great help to the public if anything were retained at its familiar value. That argument was then true. The introduction of the 10s. coin has completely altered the argument. We have more bulk in our pocket, there is confusion between the 10s. coin and the florin and the weight-value relationship has been lost.
The cure is to introduce a 20 new penny or a 25 new penny piece related to the 10s. piece and gradually ease out the florin. Halsbury, appointed in 1961, recommended that the weight-value relationship should be kept. But the 10s. piece has effectively introduced a three-tier coinage and there is no useful weight-value relationship left. Lord Halsbury actually recommended a 20 new

631
penny piece in a weight-value relationship with the florin and because of that it was necessarily a very heavy coin. He envisaged keeping the 10s. note and having, here and now, a 20 new penny piece. The Government rightly rejected this because the coin would be too large.
Lord Halsbury also said that when a 10s. coin was introduced:
"In our view, it would then be convenient to undertake a further revision of the coinage."
Further, the 1969 White Paper said:
"a 20 new pence or 25 new pence coin in the same tier as the 50 new pence coin could be issued after the changeover if there were a demand."
—though there will now be difficulties because of the particular size of the 10s. coin. The gap between the florin and the 10s. coin is far too wide. Most countries have a coin of higher value than a florin and a note of lower value than 10s. As the House is aware, the optimum relationship for coins in a coinage is that they should go up in value by twice in each step. We, however, will have a very peculiar relationship if we keep the sixpence and do not have a 20 new pence or 25 new pence coin. The steps will be 2, 2, 5/4, 2, 2, 5 This is a most erratic and troublesome progression.
The 20 and 25 new penny piece coin will also be a great advantage to the public when buying, from slot machines, such products as cigarettes, which cost more than a florin. Any machine which involves the use of two coins has to be complicated. It has to have some mechanism which will make a conditional response to the first coin and return it if the second coin turns out to be a dud. Losing the florin will not be so inconvenient. In 1962, out of 11 million slot machines only 1 million accepted florins and almost all of these accepted shillings or sixpences as well.
The Government are bound to have some difficulty in deciding whether this new coin should be 20 new pence or 25 new pence and in deciding its size. The fact that they have chosen a 10s. coin, too close to the 2s. coin in size, means that any new coin, 25 new pence or 20 new pence, if it is in weight-value relationship to the 10s. coin will be confused with the shilling. A shilling weighs five-
632
twelfths of a 10s. coin and, therefore, a 20 new pence coin would be of identical size and weight to a shilling. That is their problem, and it may be that the weight-value relationship will have to be abandoned. I do not think, as we are landed with a three-tier coinage, that that would necessarily be unfortunate. The new coin would also provide some welcome work for the Mint, which I understand is an issue at the moment.
Accordingly, since the Government have shown that they are not inflexible on this matter and can yield to pressure, I hope that, in addition to extending the life of the sixpence, they will introduce a new 20 or 25 new pence coin coupled with a statement that in due course they will withdraw the florin to avoid confusion with the 10s. piece.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: I understand that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) represents, as a Member of Parliament, 50 or 60 of my hon. Friends. I have mixed feelings as to whether he represents their views on this subject. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the controversy between the new 50p piece and the 10s. note or an equivalent note. I spent a lot of time talking to people about this when the controvery was at its greatest and the conclusion I reached was that peoples' misgivings were centred around the fact that they felt that it did not have the same value, because, for some psychological reason, people have come to associate a greater value with paper money.
It was because it was not paper money that people had some resistance to the new coin. The majority accept that a 50p piece has advantages over paper money, but they just have this feeling that it was not of equal value to the 10s. note. It is a question of the feelings of people and probably a lifelong association with paper money. I do not know what the answer is unless we are to have a massive reintroduction of paper money at values less than the £. Since both sides of the House are agreed that we should not do this I am sure that we will overcome the problem in time.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has referred to the pound-penny system. The present Home Secretary once said that having

633
rejected the pound-mil system the alternative, based on the £, must be a bastard system. We all recognise the problems, once having adopted the £ as the basis, divided by 100. There must be a combination of systems by introducing a vulgar fraction into the concept. We are only now beginning to realise the extent of the difficulties. When we think of having more than two figures to the right of the decimal point we can all appreciate the tremendous difficulties for accountancy systems and the like.
In the present system we have two figures to the right of the decimal point and also this curious fraction, the ½ stuck on the end. To do away with that and have a two-figure system to the right of the decimal would mean a minimum coin of 2½p at present values and a built-in escalator for rising costs.
In the original discussion about the adoption of the £, a series of assumptions was made, which I totally reject, one of which was that within 10 years we shall be able to do away with the fraction in our monetary system. It was argued that from 1959 to 1969 there was an increase in the Retail Price Index of about 41 per cent. It is now argued that from 1970 to 1980 there will be a similar increase of 40 per cent. It is suggested that, as a result of the 40 per cent. minimum increase, we shall be able to phase out the ½p by about 1980. The argument is, therefore, that we should resist the introduction of this new coin, which would create the problem of the third figure to the right of the decimal point. The designers of our currency envisage that within 10 years we can have a system with only two figures to the right of the decimal point and nothing else to worry about. I reject completely the assumption on which that argument is based, and I believe that we should do everything possible to avoid an increase in the cost of living during the next 10 years.
Another argument is that 1p is a quarter of a thousandth part of the likely average wage in 1980. This will mean that the ½p will have a meaningless value, that it will be in the same position as the cent in the United States, with all the problems that go with it. I hope there will be an average wage of about £40 in 1980, but I do not accept that it
634
follows from that that the ½p will be unnecessary.
It is a common belief that, once we go over to the decimal system, people will dismiss the ½p as of little value. This would be disastrous to living costs generally. I suggest to my hon. Friend that, in the intensive campaign which he has mentioned, we should ask Thompson's, or whoever handles the campaign, to develop the slogan, "One over two equals 1·2". If we can get that message across, people will get an idea of the value of the ½p. They will be able to understand the value much better if we can present that idea to them in a simple form.
We forget that the new 6d. will be referred to as 2½p. That has problems and is an automatic built-in escalator for rising costs. The small oranges which are common in the greengrocers' shops just now at 6d. apiece will be 2½p, and the tendency will be to regard them as being cheaper. There is likely to be, therefore, a change in attitude towards prices., a different level of tolerance, and resistance to new price increases will be reduced.
Undoubtedly prices will be rounded up. I have done a thorough research on this with some colleagues outside the House. Despite what the Government have said and the activities of the Decimal Currency Board, the rounding up is bound to cost an extra 5s. on an average wage of £25 a week. This represents a minimum increase of 1 per cent. in the cost of living.
To give an example, the price of a popular brand of cigarettes with filter tips is 5s. 2d. On a straight conversion that would be 26p, which represents a ½d. increase. We know, therefore, that cigarettes will go up by ½d. next year.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Will my hon. Friend say what will be the situation of people living on small fixed incomes?
Mr. Atkinson: Those people are the most vulnerable to changes in prices. The most worrying aspect of this is the cumulative effect on people with small incomes. There will be this ½d. increase on a packet of cigarettes next year, and there will also be difficulties with vending machines. The Government should now

635
consider a variation in the tax, so that some of these problems can be avoided. The tax may be rounded up on some things and decreased on others. If we could buy cigarettes at 20 for 25p, the vending machine problems would be overcome. That would mean a reduction of 2d.
I argue for the introduction of a new 2½p piece and against the continuation of the 6d., which is of little value for use in machines because of its nearness in size and weight to the other coins. We should now be considering using the spare capacity at the Mint to produce the new 2½p coin, which would be invaluable for use in coin-operated launderettes, auto-fare buses, on the Underground and in many other machines needing a coin which can be used in multiples.
Finally, on the matter of the cost of conversion, which has been played down, some research has been done. The original estimate was £150 million, which I consider to be an under-estimate. From the figures I have seen, the cost of conversion would appear to be something like £300 million. If commerce, banking, government, local authorities, indeed all aspects of our life including the retail trade, and so on, are to be subject to conversion, involving changes of machinery amounting to that sort of figure, that is bound to affect the cost of living. Most economists to whom I have spoken about the matter estimate that it is bound to mean an increase of something like 1 per cent. in the cost of living. If one adds that 1 per cent. to the previous 1 per cent. in evaluating the costs of decimalisation, it will mean an increase of 2 per cent. in the cost of living. With those pleas to the Government, I hope that my hon. Friend will take particular note of the introduction of a new 2½p piece.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has given the House some useful examples of the effect of price increases when decimalisation is brought in. I thought that the Minister of State in introducing the matter gave a useful example of the new Ministerial principle, which is that the length of a ministerial speech goes in inverse ratio to the import-
636
ance of what he has to say. I was reminded of the old naval maxim, "When in trouble make smoke". The hon. Gentleman was making smoke, and indeed it was difficult to find until the end of his speech precisely what he had in mind. The more he used the phrase "Let me make this clear", which he did abundantly, the more opaque became his thoughts.
The truth is that the Government have got themselves into a muddle over the 6d., and it is a muddle of their own making. It never would have been necessary to abolish it if the Government had chosen the 10s. unit. Both Australia and South Africa chose the 10s. unit and kept the 6d.—[An HON. MEMBER: "And New Zealand."] I am reminded that was also the case in New Zealand. They have all kept the 6d. in the form of the 5-cent piece.
The problem has been that the Financial Secretary gave an assurance that the 6d. would go, and as recently as last Tuesday the Minister of State said that the Government had made clear in the past their view about the likely future of the 6d. Therefore, in the course of two or three days, despite the intense pressure on them, they could not give up quite as easily as all that. It would never have been necessary to have had this debate had the Government chosen the right system in the first place.
I should like to say a few words about the 6d. piece. It is a happy little coin and it has been around for a long time, I understand since 1551. It is a small and unassuming coin, and one is always glad to have it. It is not as valuable as it was. One cannot go and buy up Woolworths with it as one could before the war, but in recent years it has become increasingly useful as a token of value. It is light. One can carry a lot of them about and it has become the staple coin for anything you want to do in a hurry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not everything."] Whether it is to make a telephone call, to travel two stops on the Underground, to park one's car for a few minutes, or to buy a bar of chocolate, it is the tanner you need.
What then is the future of the 6d.? Ultimately we are told it will last for the transitional period while the matter is being handed over to Lord Fiske to study. The nearest coin in value is the

637
2p bronze coin—I must admit that when the bronze age is mentioned this Government leap readily to mind—which will be twice as heavy as the 1p piece. If it is to be used a lot, then we shall be wise to have our pockets reinforced. But it will not be the alternative to the 6d., because eventually that will be the 5p piece. There may be a short period of flirtation with the 2p piece when the sixpence goes. We shall be consuming mini-bars of chocolate, and I understand that we are to have a 2p piece slot in telephone kiosks. One will just have time to clear one's throat and say "Hello" before the time is up and one will have to insert a 10p piece.
The coin most commonly in use if the 6d. goes will be the 5p piece, doubling the cost of everything now done by the 6d. It is no good the Government saying that we will get twice the value, because we will not. We will pay double what we pay now for travelling two stops on the Underground. One only has to ask the gentlemen in the ticket office at Westminster Underground how often the 6d. is used to discover that it is the most popular coin in use. Cars will stay much longer at meters, with all the harmful effects that will have on traffic.
What about the cost of converting all the meters? How much will it cost? Why should the ratepayers be saddled with this quite unnecessary increase? The vending machine industry alone estimates that it will have to find £10 million to cover the cost of conversion—a completely unnecessary expense. London Transport says that it will have to bear a cost of £1 million. Therefore, the passing of the 6d. will cost industry a lot of money. But it will not be long before that cost is passed straight on to the consumer. I would guess that the velocity of the 6d. is very high, and so will be the new 5p piece, so that the cost of living is bound to rise rapidly.
It is true that the switch to decimal currency has always been said to be an expensive operation, but why make it gratuitously expensive? The fact is that the Government chose the wrong system in the first place, the unit rather than the 10s. unit. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time that there is
638
"…an international argument for retaining the £."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1746.]
That argument was blown sky high by devaluation.
The real trouble was that the £unit became, rather like Clause Four in the Socialist philosophy, an article of faith. No rational argument was possible. The tablets had been brought down from the mountain and that was that. The Prime Minister was reported in The Times of 3rd March, 1967, as saying that there would be no abandonment by the Government of their position on a decimalised pound, there would be no preliminary debate, there would be no free vote. It is rather like something out of Kipling, because the Prime Minister had to withdraw his troops from the Himalayas where he had put them and he now had to make a new front line, the £ unit. There is some sense in switching from the unattainable to the untenable. It is progress of a sort, but not particularly rapid.
Why do we not just keep the 6d.? Has that become an article of faith, too? What a battle cry for the troops, "Banish the sixpence!" Surely even at this late stage, there must be room for common sense. Let us call it 2·5p, if we have to. But why involve ourselves without reason in completely unnecessary expense and inconvenience? Why do we not just leave it alone? As the duchess said in "Alice in Wonderland":
"If everybody minded their own business, the world would go round a good deal faster than it does."
5.30 p.m.
Mr. David Ginsburg: Like the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Peter Hordern), I was an unrepentant "ten bobber", and I severely criticised the former Chancellor of the Exchequer for not agreeing to a free vote in the House. Equally, I am in a position to criticise the Opposition for wishing this evening to press the matter to a vote.
From the public point of view there is no question that this House took the wrong decision in 1967 and adopted the wrong system. But, having taken the decision to adopt the £-decimal system, it is my regrettable view that we have to see the system through.
After all, when one looks at the Opposition Motion, what are they

639
suggesting? Are they saying that at this stage of the game we should have a 10s. system?
Mr. Iain Macleod Mr. Iain Macleod indicated dissent.
Mr. Ginsburg: Apparently not. Is it even suggested that the whole operation should be postponed for a year or two? I have not heard a suggestion of that kind from the benches opposite.
In practice, we have to make the best of a difficult job, we have to make the changeover as smooth as possible, to see that difficulties are kept to a minimum and that the problems of the public are eased. In that sense, even though he made rather heavy weather of it, I welcome the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I thought too that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) should have been a little more forthcoming.
In any case, whatever the future of the 6d. piece may be, I think that it is the consensus of feeling in the House that there is room for a coin of some kind which fulfils the rôle of the 6d. for the slot machine. On the Continent, counters may be purchased for telephone calls and for use in slot machines at underground stations. It may be that the future of the 6d. eventually could be along those lines. The day may come when the 6d. is demonetised and that something similar in shape and weight continues to serve slot machines. In that way, the cost of living problem described by my hon. Friend the member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) will be attended to.
I want to touch upon certain other aspects of decimalisation which cause me concern. But, first, I should declare an indirect interest here in that I am a director of a market research company which undertakes surveys of office machinery.
I was a little worried about the Press release issued shortly before Christmas by Lord Fiske, Chairman of the Decimal Currency Board. In it, he expressed his concern about the progress of small firms in preparing for decimalisation. He adduced evidence that the large firms were co-operating with the board and making their plans in very good time, but that something like a third of the smaller
640
firms were not and that the gap was growing. Some of his words are melodramatic. For example, he said:
"With just over 15 months to go to D-Day, the increasingly wide gap between the state of preparedness of the biggest and smallest firms gives cause for some concern.…The writing is now clearly on the wall for the small business man. With everything pointing to a massive swing to decimal working, all firms will be faced with a steadily increasing amount of decimal documentation."
I submit that that is the wrong tone for the chairman of the Decimal Currency Board to adopt. That may be the situation. It may be regrettable that smaller firms are converting more slowly than the board would wish, in which case the board and the Government should ask themselves whether there is not more which could be done to speed up matters.
That brings me to a positive suggestion which I would make for transmission to the Decimal Currency Board. It concerns its publicity campaign. The Minister has said and the board has confirmed that a massive campaign of education is planned at the end of the year. Certain aspects of the board's campaign should be brought forward and started within the next few weeks. If it is brought forward, certain preparatory steps can be taken by the smaller firms which at present are not preparing for decimalisation. Publicity directed towards these smaller firms should be through the more popular media. Particular stress should be laid on the problem of adding machines.
The board has issued a report about the cash register situation. It says that plans for decimal cash registers are satisfactory, though even there it is worried about the position of smaller firms. However, it is significant that the board has not issued a report about the installation of decimalised adding machines, and I hope that the Government will institute further urgent inquiries in this direction.
I know that the statistical documentation is not as detailed as it should be, but I gather from the Decimal Currency Board that it estimates that there are in existence about 750,000 adding machines. The best estimates that I have been able to obtain indicate that in 1968 the output of adding machines was running at about 75,000 per annum, and that rose in 1969 to 150,000 per annum. However, I suggest that there will be certain serious problems if there are more orders for new

641
decimalised adding machines than expected, and there will be an even more serious problem if the Decimal Currency Board has over-estimated the number of conversions. As I understand it, the board has based its plans on an estimate that people will convert their machines. However, it may be that people will take the view that the exercise is not worth a candle and that it is better to buy new machines. If orders are not placed by smaller firms very soon and they prefer to wait six months, nine months or even a year, there may be a shortage of decimalised adding machines. The machines will not be there to match the orders.
One message then which could come out of this debate, apart from the issue of the sixpence is the issue of urgency. The Decimal Currency Board should be instructed to circulate some of their propaganda and publicity on decimalisation at an earlier date. The sooner that it goes out, the more rapidly will action be taken and the smoother the changeover will be.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) say that he was an "unrepentant ten bobber" and that there was no question but that we had adopted the wrong system. I could not help reflecting what a tragedy it has been for the reputation of this House and for the good sense of the country as a whole that hon. Members like him did not have the courage of their convictions when this matter was put to the test. Although the Government could not allow a free vote, if there had been a few more rebels on this issue as there have been on some others, we would not now be having this debate. On a free vote, I am convinced that the 10s. system would have won the day. It is attractive to the vast majority of hon. Members—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) does not agree, because I have listened to him in other debates, but I am sure that he would be honest enough to admit that, if his colleagues had had a free vote and had joined with those other forces, on a completely nonpolitical basis, who were in favour of the 10s. system and who were supported by reputable organisations outside like the Consumer Council, the T.U.C. and
642
many others, there is no doubt which way the decision would have gone.
Mr. A. H. Macdonald: Never.
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, but I could name a good many hon. Members opposite who would have gone into the other Lobby if it had not been for the imposition of the Whips.
If that had happened, instead of this debate, we could have been discussing the implementation of decimal currency on an all-party basis and with support from all hon. Members, with 10s. as the major unit and the retention of the 6d piece as an intrinsic part of the system. I need hardly remind hon. Members that, in a 10s. system, the 6d. would have represented 5p and could have been an integral part of the system, just as the 1 s. turns into 5p in the £-decimal system. But that is water under the bridge, and there is not much point in recapitulating all the arguments in the House when the Government held to their decision, against the advice of all the authorities that I have mentioned and the advice of the majority of the people.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Chislehurst would argue with me here. If he does, may I tell him that with Lord Halsbury I took part in the television programme "24-Hours" at the beginning of 1967. As a result, many people wrote either to myself or to the producer of the programme. Out of those who wrote, 66 were in favour of the 10s. unit, five were in favour of the system that the Government have adopted, five were in favour of the £-mil system, 11 were in favour of some other system, four wanted no change, and one was indifferent.
I am not pretending that that is an entirely random sample, but it fairly represents the views of the majority of people in this country. From that it can be seen that once the issues were explained, overwhelmingly they supported the adoption of the 10s. system.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst keeps shaking his head. However, this has been confirmed by independent surveys conducted at the time by consultants like Hoskyns. However, as I said, it is useless to recapitulate the arguments and I do not propose to go over them.

643
The question to which the House has to address itself today is how we will mitigate the enormous damage that may be caused by the Government's policy if they pursue the decision to withdraw the sixpence as soon as possible after D-Day. I believe that within the framework of the £, penny and half-penny system which has been adopted, the scope for variation is extremely limited. We have most of the necessary coins already in production in the shape of the 5, 2 and 10 new penny pieces.
The manufacturers of accounting and vending machines have taken account of the proposed changes in their plans. So almost the only question of any importance which remains to be discussed is whether the 6d. should be retained and, to a lesser degree, the point raised by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) about whether we should have another coin in the system, which has been referred to as a double florin. The hon. Gentleman was not correct in his recollection of what Lord Halsbury said on that issue. Lord Halsbury proposed several alternatives, one of which was that a double florin would be part of a third-tier coinage connected in its weight with the new 10s. coin. As the Government finally decided to have the 10s. coin, it is a matter for consideration whether, in the same tier, we should have a 4s. piece related to it in weight. This would be of great convenience for the public and an addition to the system which would be to the advantage of retailers and those who manufacture automatic vending and coin-operated machines of all kinds who, as it stands, will have nothing between the florin and the 10s. piece which they can use.
Suggestions have been made that there are various objections to the retention of the 6d.—for example, that the 2p and the 2½p piece are too near together. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that we got on very nicely with the florin and the half-crown for over a century. Therefore, I look on this as a minor objection to the retention of the 6d. I am sure this will not bother the public to any degree.
The right hon. Gentleman touched briefly on the tikki argument. He pointed
644
out that the 3d. piece in South Africa lasted for six years before being finally withdrawn. But should it not be emphasised that the tikki was never used in South Africa in as wide a series of transactions as is the 6d. in this country? I do not think that the tikki was ever used in coin-operated machines, such as telephones, gas meters, machines for selling chocolate bars, and so on. I am convinced that if we compare the percentage of sixpences with the total amount of coinage in circulation in this country, it will be found to be much higher than the percentage of tikkis to the total coinage at the time that South Africa converted to decimal currency. This comparison, which has sometimes been made by the Government, is entirely spurious. We should look at the intrinsic place of the 6d. in our system rather than draw totally unrealistic comparisons with what may have happened in another country.
The third objection touched on by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West—and here I must agree with him—was that technically it is unsound to import a fraction into the system. We are faced with this dilemma because of the Government's insistence on adopting the E as a major unit. If we are to make a choice between having a component in the system which is technically and theoretically unsound and using a coin which in practice has proved to be of such wide value, I prefer the latter. I think that if we put this to the average member of the public, he would tend to discount these theoretical arguments of the currency experts—those in the banks, and so on—and say that, from the point of view of convenience, he would like to retain the 6d.
A further point which has not been mentioned, but to which I allude in passing, is the implication for the Royal Mint of doing away with the 6d. If it goes out of circulation fairly soon after D-day, which may be a period of up to 18 months—we do not know how long the transitional period will be, but on the Government's original plans the 6d. is to disappear from circulation along with the 3d. piece and the 1d. as soon as the transititon period is over, which is expected to last for 18 months at most—the demand for the decimal coinage will leap up to take that into account. If

645
the 6d. could be retained, not only during the transitional period but also for an indefinite period afterwards, the burdensome demands on the Royal Mint would decrease during both the change-over period and thereafter.
The last time I looked at the figures, there were about 1,800 million sixpences in circulation. If the 6d. disappears at a given moment, immediately prior to that date the Royal Mint will be working overtime to provide coins equivalent to it of some other denomination.
Concerning the Royal Mint, I should like to mention one point that has disturbed me about the transfer of production to South Wales, which I cannot dispute as being within the policy accepted by both sides of creating work in development areas. I have received a disturbing memorandum from the chairman of the Joint Trade Union Committee at the Royal Mint. Among other things, the chairman says that the transfer is not being conducted efficiently, that no regard is being paid to the interests of the workers now at Tower Hill, and asking what will happen to them when the change-over is complete in 1973.
Being rather anxious about it, as a result of aproaches made to me by some of my constituents, I put two Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Answers to which made me feel even more anxious about the future of the people working at the Royal Mint. I was told that many of the staff there have been promoted into temporary positions and that when the transfer goes through it is likely that they will revert to their substantive ranks, thus suffering a considerable drop in pay. It also appears that production has suffered through the split of manufacture of coins between Tower Hill and South Wales. I am reliably informed by the trade union side at the Tower Hill Mint that the blanks that are being used in South Wales are nearly all being imported from Germany. If so, with the vast investment which we have made in the new Royal Mint in South Wales, how is it that we cannot produce these blanks ourselves, either at Tower Hill or at one of the other establishments used by the Government in the past?
646
I suppose that the impact of this debate on the public is largely concentrated on the cost of living. I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) about the likely effects of abolishing the 6d. It is no use the Government saying, as they have said in the past, that it is easy enough for manufacturers to alter the amount of goods on offer at the same time that they use another coin. This may work satisfactorily in STD call boxes, and I have no complaint about the decision of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to convert these boxes to take the 2p piece while giving a slightly smaller amount of time for that coin.
But with many other common articles which are sold for 6d., the difficulties are not quite so easily overcome. Chocolates are an example. If a manufacturer decided to offer a bar worth only 4·8d., obviously the packing and the overheads would be just as great as when selling it for 6d., so the intrinsic cost of the operation goes up and the value to the consumer must go down. If, on the other hand, he decided to increase the size of the bar and sell it for 5p, he would cut out of his market a great many consumers who can only afford 6d. at a time. I am thinking particularly of the children, who are probably the greatest proportion of the market for chocolates bought from slot machines.
Another example is the daily newspapers, many of which cost 6d. What are they to do? It would be highly inconvenient—it was inconvenient when many evening newspapers were 5d.—to choose an amount involving the payment of two coins, so it will be natural for the newspaper publishers to increase their price to 5p—some of the Sundays are approaching this already—and it will cost people a great deal more to get their news.
I do not want to give many more examples, since they will probably occur to hon. Gentlemen anyway, but the one about which I have the greatest anxiety as a London Member is what will happen to fares on London Transport. There has been the most alarming talk about a minimum fare of 1s. I am certain that I speak for all my constituents when I say that this would be strongly resented and virulently opposed if any such suggestion were implemented by London

647
Transport. The Minister said that no final decision had been made and that no doubt London Transport would listen to what hon. Members said today.
I should like to issue a warning to London Transport that, if they do such a thing, they will find that they lose a large section of the community who have hitherto been their loyal customers and who will, by hook or by crook, find some other method of travelling to work. Many of these consumers, I am sorry to say, will be tempted to use their motor cars, thus adding to the serious congestion from which we all suffer already in Central London. So it would be a very retrograde step if London Transport decided to go ahead with this proposal. I hope very much that they will reconsider.
As for the Minister's undertaking about the 6d., he is obviously in a great difficulty in trying to reconcile what he had to say with the firm stand taken by his colleagues in the past. I was not certain what the value of his concession was. We all knew that, in any case, the 6d. was to be retained until the end of the transition period.
On the last occasion that the 6d. was debated in the House, on the 1969 Bill, I told the Government that they could easily accept the Amendment moved, I think, by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) to the effect that the 6d. should be retained for the time being but that, some time after the transitional period, they should use the powers in the 1920 Coinage Act to withdraw it by Royal Proclamation. There would have been no difficulty in thereby giving the users of the 6d. the breathing space which we are now demanding.
Unfortunately, they refused to accept that suggestion at the time, largely, I think, for reasons of face. They now have another opportunity to say something absolutely definite. I hope that before the end of the debate the Financial Secretary will say something more definite on behalf of the Government, because many people have large investments locked up in machines using the 6d. piece. I am thinking particularly of the automatic vending machine industry, for which this coin is of great importance. The Minister resisted the claims of that industry for compensation,
648
which I think were fully justified, but it would be grossly unfair not to give them a firm basis on which to plan for the future, and he should announce at the end of this debate that the 6d. will be retained—I suggest for at least five years.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. A. H. Macdonald: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will not be surprised when I say that I disagree with almost everything he said. The only thing with which I agreed was his concluding call for a more definite statement, although the definite statement I want is the opposite of the one that he wants. In the main, I support the Government, but I have one criticism of their handling of decimalisation.
It must be obvious that, in the introduction of a decimal system, a critical position will be occupied by the banks and that a great burden will fall on their staffs. I have been a little astonished to find that there has been no consultation between the Government and the National Union of Bank Employees. I should declare an interest in that I am a member of that union. If the Government were introducing a major change involving the mines or the railways, they would not dream of proceeding without having the closest consultation with the unions concerned. I am very sorry that the Government and the Decimal Currency Board have not seen fit to consult the union on a matter in which the activities of bank staffs are of such crucial importance, and I hope that it is not too late for those discussions to be held.
I turn from that criticism to the agreeable and easy task of defending the Government's decimalisation policy. I suppose that it is common ground that whatever system of decimalisation is introduced is bound to cause some confusion at the time of its introduction. I suppose that it is common ground, also. that it will be the Government's duty to do what they can to minimise such confusion. But that is where I part company from the Opposition, who apparently believe that it follows from those two principles that the system of decimal currency to be adopted should be the one which affords the easiest transition.
I do not think this to be so at all. I think that the system of decimal cur-

649
rency to be adopted should be the one which will give the best results in the long run. After all, we are planning a currency which is to last for 100 or 200 years. If the system which is best in the long run is also the easiest to introduce, well and good. If not, then all reasonable steps should be taken to minimise any difficulty arising, but not to the extent of adopting a system which is less than the best. What fools our children and grandchildren will think us to be if, in 50 years' time, they find themselves saddled with a system of decimal currency less satisfactory than the best that could have been found, and a system adopted simply on the basis of the slot machines which were in existence in February, 1971.
The Opposition cannot escape the charge that they have failed to think clearly on this subject. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), who led for the Conservatives in the Committee considering the first Decimal Currency Bill, said that we were planning for 200 years. The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who led for the Conservatives in the Committee which considered the second Decimal Currency Bill, said that after 20 years the balance of advantage lay with the £ system which the Government had adopted.
If we are planning for 200 years, and if the Opposition say that the Government's system is better for 180 out of the 200 years, where is the case which they still hanker after for adopting the 10s. system which will so soon become less than satisfactory?
Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman has taken my words out of context.
Mr. Macdonald: If I have done so, I apologise, but I have heard, as opposed to reading, every word spoken on decimalisation in this Parliament. I think that I am possibly the only Member on this side of the House who can claim that, and possibly the hon. Member for Worthing is the only one who can claim it on the other side.
I do not think that I have taken the hon. Gentleman's words out of context, but I shall give the reference in case he wants to chase it up. It is at col. 37 of the Committee Report dated 18th April, 1967. I do not think that I am taking the hon. Gentleman out of con-
650
text. If he looks it up, he will see that he said that the system proposed by the Government would be the best after 20 years. Therefore, if we are planning for 200 years, and if our system is the best for 180 out of those 200 years, it is a little petulant to go on harking back to a 10s. system.
I beg the critics to lift their eyes from their myopic study of the immediate effect, and to look ahead. After all, it is rare that the House has an opportunity to plan for such a long period ahead. In 100 or 200 years, who knows which of our institutions will be in existence, but we can be tolerably certain that the currency which we choose now will be. We ought, therefore, to take some trouble to make sure that we choose the system which will be best in the long run.
This question of the best system in the long run is the key to the question of decimalisation, and it is a concept which the Opposition have failed to grasp. On looking at the Motion, I cannot see that the Opposition have sufficiently grasped this long-term concept. I have listened to the debates on decimalisation, but to refresh my memory I have, during the two or three days when I knew that this Motion was to be discussed, looked up the arguments in favour of the 10s. system. There is none. The arguments deployed in favour of the 10s. system are arguments about the transitional period.
The long-term arguments, it seemed to me at the time, and still does, are weighty and solid in favour of the £ system which the Government have so wisely and rightly adopted. The Government did not adopt the £ system solely for international reasons. Although the Halsbury Report laid great stress on the international reasons, the Government did not adopt this system for those reasons, and it is unfortunate that the Opposition Front Bench keep on and on as though the Government did. I wish that the Opposition would not indulge in this tedious repetition, especially when it is clear that the Government adopted the £ system because the 10s. system is precisely and quantifiably twice as bad as the £ system.
Under the £ system, the lowest unit can be demonetised when it is no longer necessary. Under the 10s. system, the lowest unit cannot be demonetised when necessary. We have to wait until the one

651
above becomes superfluous, because we cannot get rid of the little coin. It would still be required for giving change, even though it was too small to buy anything. the £ system also has the advantage of a large top unit, and this is a weighty and solid argument which I think brushes aside all others.
The long-term arguments are in favour of the £ system, and even the short-term arguments are not all in favour of the 10s. system. It is worth noting that the £ system will be the cheapest in regard to converting accounting machines and cash registers, and when the ten-bobbers advanced the argument of associability there was a defect to which curiously little attention was given. In the associability argument the ten-bobbers said how easy it would be for the housewife to consider 63 cents, because she would immediately identify that with 6s. 3d.
That was the example constantly given. None of the ten-bobbers quoted the example of 68 cents, because under their system 68 cents would be equal, not to 6s. 8d., but to 6s. 10d. Therefore, for every transaction involving an odd number of pennies there would be a slight bias against the housewife. She would be buying something at a price slightly more than she thought would be the case, and there are no counter balancing instances. It therefore seemed that the associability argument was extremely adverse to the interests of the housewife.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Sheila Jones said in an appendix to the Halsbury Report that some elderly or less intelligent people might take months to learn the £-cent-½system, while some might never really master it? Dr. Jones found that it was quite possible for the same people to master the 10s. system. This is the whole point of the associability of the 10s. system, that it is much easier to master, as the experts found.
Mr. Macdonald: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it shows that I have failed to make my point clear.
My point about the associability argument in respect of the 10s. system is that
652
many people would think that they had accepted it, but there would be this little built-in bias which they would not spot. It seemed that the long-term arguments were in favour of the £ system, and that even the short-term arguments were not all in favour of the 10s. system. The Opposition have, therefore, fallen back on the argument about saving the tanner.
As there has been so much propaganda during the last few weeks about the case in favour of the tanner, I should like to take a couple of minutes to deploy the case against it, because this case has not really been heard. First, if we were starting from scratch nobody would conceive of a system of currency in which we would have a 2d. and 2½d. piece so close together. That would be an absurdity, and the Halsbury Report, in setting out the considerations which should govern the introduction of a new currency, was clear that the ideal system should not include both a 2d. piece and a 2½d. piece. Manifestly, if we could start from scratch, that would be a nonsense. That is a rather obvious argument, but it is a sound one.
Second, those who want to retain the tanner in the decimal system are forgetting the object of the whole exercise, which is to get away from fractions and to introduce a decimal system. It is true that under the system proposed by the Government there will be a fraction. This is a blemish, but it is one which will disappear in time.
Mr. Atkinson: How long?
Mr. Macdonald: I shall come to that.
To introduce a 2½p piece is to double the blemish, and when the time comes to demonetise the halfpenny, in answer to my hon. Friend's intervention, I believe it is difficult to foresee how long that is likely to be, but I do not dissent from his estimate.
If the time comes to demonetise the halfpenny, there is a risk that we may find we are unable to do so because we shall still need to keep the halfpenny in order to give change for the 2½p; because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield (Mr. Macleod) visualises keeping the 2½p for a considerable time. If this system were to be adopted, therefore, we run the risk in

653
the fullness of time of being saddled with a halfpenny, too small to buy anything, but which we cannot get rid of because we need it to give change.
When we were discussing the pound-florin-mil proposal which also required a lowest coin too small to buy anything but which was necessary to give change, the right hon. Gentleman described it as a peculiarly unrewarding system. This afternoon he comes forward for something also peculiarly unrewarding.
It seems to me that to retain a 2½P piece, in the pound-penny-halfpenny system we are proposing, combines the worst features of the ten-bob system and the one pound system. In one proposal it enshrines everything we ought not to do.
Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but part of his argument is based on the assumption that within 10 years we are to have a system whereby the minimum coin will be 2·4d., at today's value approximately 2½d. In other words, by 1980 we shall have a system using a minimum coin of 2½d. at today's value.
Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend should not be at all distracted by the numerical value of the coin, but impressed by its purchasing power. With all possible respect, it is really misleading to talk about values rather than purchasing power. I invite him to consider the conditions prevailing before the First World War, when the purchasing power of the farthing was comparable and none of the difficulties he visualises were apparently in existence even though the general standard of living was much lower than it is now.
Finally, if the tanner is retained for a considerable though unspecified period, there will be a great deal of uncertainty. Slot- and vending-machine manufacturers will not know, when constructing machines, whether to put in a slot for this coin. I will bet that in practice they will not and I am sure the Government are right in maintaining that the tanner will speedily disappear out of existence. A year ago there was a letter in the Financial Times from the chairman of the Decimal Currency Committee of the Retail Distribution Association. He said:
"Most sectors of retailing are now well advanced with planning for decimalisation and
654
these plans do not include use of the sixpenny coin."
That was one year ago, so how much more powerful is the argument today?
The final argument I want to advance against the tanner is the fact which my hon. Friend touched on in his speech, that in a decimal system it will not come into circulation. On Tuesday of this week I was arguing with a friend about this and she disagreed with me. We went into a shop and I bought something for 17s. 1d. I handed over a £1 note and predicted the coins that I would get in change: two pence, a threepenny bit, a sixpence and a florin, in that order, and that was exactly what happened—in that order; because shop assistants are trained to give change in a manner that builds up from a lower to a higher unit. This practice will continue in a decimal currency system. Therefore, when change is given the one coin that will never be given is a 2½p piece, because this will bring the shop assistant back down from a higher to a lower unit, which is not the easiest way of giving change.
With all these arguments against the tanner, it seems obvious that it will not come into existence and the argument crumbles away. I really regret the ill-advised, ill-informed campaign that has been mounted to retain it. Fortunately, this campaign has had little effect. There are 60,000 people on the electoral roll of my constituency and from among all these people in the last week or two, with all this campaigning going on to save the sixpence, I have had one letter on this subject, from Mr. J. M. Tierney, of Sidcup. He says:
"I do hope the move to retain the old sixpenny piece fails."
Good for you, Mr. Tierney. You are quite right. Decimal Day is only one year ahead. I would have thought our time would be better spent in preparing the public for the change-over and not embarking on these alarms.
The Motion before the House really sets the issue quite clearly. Are we to choose a system of decimal currency that shall be lasting even though it is less popular and less easy to introduce, or are we to choose a system that is popular to introduce, but less than satisfactory in the long run? I am quite sure the Government have chosen rightly. I applaud them for their courage, and I shall be

655
glad to support them. I do not in the least mind this reference to the Decimal Currency Board on the tanner. The board is very sensible and will come back with the inevitable recommendation that there is no place for this coin in a decimal currency system, and that it should disappear as soon as possible. I have no doubt about that, and, therefore, I shall gladly support the Government tonight.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: By the very argument which the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) has advanced, the Government stands condemned, namely, the test: will the system we are about to introduce last? If there is one thing that is utterly predictable it is that labour costs in banking and, I would have thought, in counting cash will continue to increase over the years into the foreseeable future.
I believe that it is also generally agreed as a lugubrious prophecy that the value of money will continue to fall. This means that the 10s. piece will be used more and more rather than less and less. Therefore, to have a 10s. piece which bears no relationship to the weight of the other cupro-nickel coinage is to increase the amount of work put into checking cash every single day with every single commercial activity.
At the moment, all a cashier has to do with silver to check whether envelopes have in them the amount of silver that is claimed is to put them on scales and look at a reading. Now the Government propose to have a system where the coin which will be used more and more—because, do not forget, there will be nothing between the 5p and the 10s. piece—will have to be abstracted from what used to be called silver—that has an historic ring to it, does it not?—because if mixed in with other coinage of more than 2p denomination, it cannot be weighed to check the quantum.
If ever there was a system redolent of wasted labour right from the beginning, before it is even brought into existence, it must be this; and for someone coming from the National Union of Bank Employees to recommend that as a system for the next 200 years really causes me to wonder how much thought he has given to it.
656
The Minister of State said that the tanner may be allowed to remain legal tender during the interim period, but what does this mean?—because a coin can be "murdered" secretly. While the half-crown was still legal tender it was impossible to get it from banks if one asked for it because the banks had been asked by the Decimal Currency Board not to let customers have half-crowns, even though that coin was legal tender. If similar pressure is put on banks not to let people have tanners, then, of course, it will go out of circulation.
It is no good arguing about whether people get small denomination coins from banks or shops. They will not be able to get them. Then a Minister will come to that Box and will say that the tanner has gone out of circulation and that it is no use keeping it when, in fact, it will have been murdered by the Decimal Currency Board or the Government.
I want a specific assurance from the Government that if there is to be a test of this kind, allowing the tanner to remain in circulation, no official or unofficial pressure will be brought to bear to "murder" it to try to prove the case which its continued existence is designed to test. Unless this is done, the public will not be able to form a judgment. Since at least one other back-bench Member wishes to speak, I will resume my seat.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am surprised on two counts to be speaking in this debate: first, because I did not think that there would be time, and, secondly, because I had been assured by this morning's Press that an intervention from me would not be necessary.
The more I have listened to the debate the more confused I have become, not only because much of it has been concerned with arguments for and against the 10s. system—I now regard that as a dead duck—but because I am not certain about what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said will happen to the tanner.
I will make only three points. The first is the question of the availability of the 6d. piece. At present, there are 1,800 million sixpences in circulation. About 100 million have dropped out of circulation in a very short time. This is understandable, because the tanner is a widely

657
used coin and its durability is less than some other coins. Further, we have not minted any tanners since the first half of 1969. Are more sixpences to be minted to enable a proper trial and review to take place during the conversion period?
Secondly, I believe that the Government have under-estimated the magnitude of the problem. It is estimated that 11,000 million tanners are placed in slots of one kind or another every year. In other words, every man, woman and child uses 200 sixpenny pieces each year, or each week each person puts four tanners in a slot. Even now machines, parking meters and many others, are being made to take tanners. A great national campaign is on to introduce sixpence-in-the-slot buses.
Apart from the fact that the conversion of slot meters will be enormously expensive—I do not accept my hon. Friend's estimate of £300 million; he is being far too optimistic if he thinks that the job can be done for that—we must consider the possible rise in the cost of living. In other words, if there is to be enormous expenditure on altering slot meters, then, once they are altered, there will be a general price rise. I cannot imagine a small businessman who is selling an article for, say, 10d., cutting his profit margin by rounding that sum downwards.
Thirdly—I regard this as the strongest argument for retaining the tanner—this coin is a landmark. Housewives, old-age pensioners and people generally use this coin to a great extent. As people move into the new world of decimal currency they will require a landmark of this kind.
May I have an assurance that this landmark will remain? The only way that I can be given this assurance is to be told not only that the sixpence will remain during the conversion period, but that a new 2½p coin will be minted. That can be our only hope of maintaining this landmark.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I would not dissent significantly from anything said by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). I share with him an extraordinary feeling of fantasy which seemed to enshroud the Chamber while the Minister of State was speaking.
658
It was remarkable to hear a Minister speak in that way. I do not think that hon. Members could have heard such a speech often before. Indeed, it was such a wishy-washy speech that one's belief was stretched in accepting that it was being made by a Minister of the Crown.
One of the strangest remarks he made was his call for us to adopt a non-partisan approach to this issue. Certainly, that is the approach which my hon. Friends and I have sought all along to adopt. This has been our view since 1967, when the first decimal currency Measure was introduced.
It is because the Government have insisted on adopting a partisan approach on what is clearly a non-party matter, but a matter of common sense, that we now find ourselves in trouble over the whole question of decimalisation. We may admire the Minister's nerve, but we cannot but doubt his credibility when he makes a request of that kind.
We cannot forget that on the initial question of the type of decimal currency that we should adopt, and also on the question whether or not we should retain the sixpenny piece, the Government got their way with the aid of a three-line Whip and thereby achieved results which, on both issues, did not reflect the true view of the House of Commons. I am sure that had an honest view of Parliament been sought, hon. Members would have come down in favour not only of the 10s. system, but of retaining the sixpenny piece beyond the transitional period.
Be that as it may, a decision on the type of decimalisation we are to have has been taken and even we unrepentant ten-bobbers can do nothing to alter that. It is deplorable that the Government should have forced the issue through in this way, and the same applies to the whole question of the sixpenny piece.
On the tanner issue, we expected and anticipated that the Government would take the sensible course, even at this late stage. Thus, we feel that the proposal of the Minister is the worst of all possible worlds. To suggest that we should, at this time, have an inquiry to decide whether or not to keep the tanner, is unbelievable. Where have the Government been for the last four years?
This matter does not need an inquiry. The arguments are clear and the case

659
for retaining the sixpenny piece is beyond doubt. To establish an inquiry at this stage will only increase uncertainty and lead to further confusion. It is nothing short of irresponsible for the Government to have made this suggestion, particularly at this late stage.
To suggest that an inquiry of this sort should be conducted by the Decimal Currency Board is strange indeed. After all, some telling remarks were made in Committee on the Decimal Currency Bill. For example, I said in February, 1969:
"It was unfortunate that the Secretary of the Decimal Currency Board should have adopted an attitude which came down clearly on one side of this controversial subject without expressing any contrary arguments—taking an essentially political view on the matter."
Later, I said:
"The Secretary of the Board is also on record as saying that it is not an open question. If he is reported correctly, then he is saying that there is apparently—
'no chance at all that there will be any new thinking'
on the sixpence."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, Standinq Commitete A, 27th February, 1969; c. 62–9.]
I pointed out that he had no authority to say that and that he should not have expressed that view.
Now we are told by the Minister of State that an impartial inquiry into this whole matter will be carried out by the Decimal Currency Board. This is quite preposterous and we should reject it utterly and completely. The arguments are known quite clearly as far as the retention of the 6d. is concerned. Therefore, I think that we should perhaps consider the matter in some detail.
Clearly, the decision which the Government have taken is one which shows a great determination. At earlier stages they were defeated in Committee and lost the main Clause of the Measure; they reversed that defeat on Report. In another place they were defeated again on the issue, but again reversed the defeat on Report. This is where the Government have taken a wrong but determined line.
Now, at this late day, the Government suddenly apparently think that there is something to be said in favour of looking at the matter and setting up an inquiry. This is an extraordinary situation. We are puzzled by the reports in the Press
660
today. There was one, for example, in the Daily Mail, under the simple, straightforward and rather hopeful headline, "Sixpence is saved". The only thing that we are certain about in the article is a paragraph which reads:
"Several Cabinet Ministers also realised this week that in their original planning they did not give enough thought to the sixpence's future."
Further, it is true that this is the only part of the article that we can comment on with any certainty today, because the whole question is considerably shrouded in mystery. None the less, it is right that we should at any rate outline what the main arguments are for retaining the 6d. beyond the transitional period. I also want to make it clear that it is a possible arrangement even under the £ system with all its imperfections.
Even beyond the transitional period there is a case for retaining a third coin in our existing currency which looks the same and appears the same to old-age pensioners and others as the present coin. Therefore, if we have the 2s. the 1s. and the 6d. in their new forms of the 10p, the 5p and 2½p., then this will provide three markers and will make it easier to convert at the lower end of the scale.
The main arguments are all arguments based on cost. The first is on the cost of the coins; the second on the cost of the machines; and the third—and it is important—on the cost of living. On the cost of the coins, I think that it will be helpful if the Financial Secretary would make quite clear what the cost of creating the new 2p coin has been and what it would cost to continue the complete changeover from the present system if the 6d. were abolished.
We need more up to date facts. The crucial point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. If we are to continue the 6d. beyond the transitional period it is necessary to make sure that the experiment is conducted on a fair basis. For the reason which I have mentioned already, there are grave doubts whether the Decimal Currency Board is in a position to do this. In particular, the experiment can be conducted on a fair basis only if the supply of sixpences is sufficient to meet the demand; and I find the way in which the Government seems to have mixed up the supply and demand aspects of this question quite extraordinary.

661
The Government are saying that if people cannot obtain the sixpences there will not be any demand and, therefore, they can abolish the sixpences. We must have an assurance from the Minister that if the experiment is to go forward, as it ought to do, on a definite basis, and not by means of an inquiry, sufficient coins will be provided to make sure that the experiment is conducted fairly and that the consumer can have a choice in the matter.
I do not doubt that if that is so the continued popularity and usefulness of the 6d. will be clear. I cannot help feeling, as far as the Newsletter of the Decimal Currency Board of July, 1969, is concerned, that the clear bias of the board in this respect comes out clearly. The board is worried because during the period before the transitional period there is certainly a very considerable demand for sixpences as if, somehow, this was wicked and people should not have sixpences and should not go around using sixpences if they prefer them to shillings. The Newsletter says:
"The 2,000 million sixpences now in circulation present no problem. The banks will provide special bags for them and will gladly replace customers' surplus sixpences with shillings/5p."
Anyone capable of writing a sentence like that needs his sense of humour or something else examined. Are we seriously to suppose that banks will replace the sixpences with "shillings/ 5p."? That is unlikely, but as far as that is concerned we are in a position where it must be the case that adequate supplies of sixpences are provided and where we do have a genuine experiment in which we can see whether the 6d. naturally phases out or not.
The second point concerns the cost of machines. We all know that the cost of converting machines is very substantial. The Government have refused to make any arrangements, on the recommendation of the Decimal Currency Board, with regard to compensation. Again, we now find ourselves in a position of complete uncertainty.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) and other hon. Members to the way in which the Decimal Currency Board has suggested that the small man is lagging behind the others in converting his
662
machines. In the circumstances, this is perhaps just as well. If the small man had to change his machines back and forth, depending on whether we had the 6d. or not, as often as I have rewritten my speech during the last 24 hours, he would have gone bankrupt long since. It would be wrong for the small man to make a conversion if he thought there was any chance of avoiding the cost of converting his machine for decimalisation.
Finally, there is the very important question of the cost of living. We must consider whether people round up or round down in the context of the general economic climate. For example, we have had increases in the cost of living of 5·9 per cent. in 1968 and 4·7 per cent. in 1969, and in view of this, and against a background where there is still a threat of a prices and incomes policy, it would be a very unusual retailer or other trader who decided, in the circumstances of that rate of inflation and the possibility of a prices and incomes policy that he would round down rather than up.
As was pointed out, if the retailer or trader rounded down this would have a much bigger effect on his profit margin than on price because his profit is only a small percentage of total price. Many retailers are not in a position to round down in the way that the Government have suggested. Here the Government are in the position of King Canute, because we had a statement by the Minister of State, on Tuesday, that it was Government policy that people should not round up and if it was Government policy people would not do so. The Government must take account of the point I have been making about the general trend of costs and prices and the effect of the prices and incomes policy. Of course, we are in a situation where the tide of rising prices is already coming in and where the Government are raising the level of the water considerably by a number of their own actions.
The Minister of State made an extraordinary remark about the Post Office's attitude. He suggested that private industry should make a clear declaration about what it would do and follow the example set by the Post Office. He said that the Post Office is rounding down the

663
charge, but reducing the length of a call. As I suggested in an intervention, if private firms followed that example prices would not go up but in the rounding down people would not get better value for money. As far as the other half of the ½p table is concerned, people will round up, and against this background it is extraordinary to suppose that not only will people round up but will give a little extra as well. These two prongs of the argument taken together show that the effect will be inflationary.
If the Government are to insist on abolishing the 6d. at the end of a transitional period, it is well known that the effect, for example, on parking meters will be to raise the cost of parking, which will involve the local authorities in a great deal of additional expense as well. We have received, as many other hon. Members must have done, considerable representations in this question from the various motoring interests concerned. Here again, the effect is likely to be inflationary.
Many hon. Members have expressed great concern about bus and Underground fares. The Minister of State said that they would go up anyway and that this would have nothing to do with decimalisation. It is rather like saying, "Decimalisation will not devalue the £ in your pocket." But at least the buses and the Underground have the option of keeping down fares if the 6d. is not abolished, whereas, if it is abolished, they will not have such an option. It is not conceivable that they will manage to reduce fares to the 2p level and they will have to increase their prices after the 6d. is abolished. They will not necessarily have the option of doing anything else. Here again it is a question of keeping open the options.
So we are convinced that the over-all effect of the abolition of the 6d. will be to encourage price increases and, on balance, that the effect on the cost of living will be upwards—and there are, after all, all the other upward trends in the cost of living which are very apparent in the economy at present. We therefore believe it right to move this Motion of censure on the Government, first, for the way in which they steamrollered through the wrong system of decimalisation against the wish of the House of
664
Commons, and, secondly, for the extraordinary way in which they took the decision to abolish the 6d., taking a determined stand in the wrong direction in the first place.
Great uncertainty has now been created by the Minister of State's statement. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, if the Government were prepared to give way on the question of the 6d. and make a clear statement to that effect, we would not propose to divide the House, even though we think that the system to be adopted is wrong and that the Government are responsible for it. But after the hon. Gentleman's speech we believe that we have no option but to vote against the Government tonight.
The decision announced by the Minister is the worst of all possible worlds. It creates far more uncertainty at a time when we need certainty. The Government say that they want a study. They have had four years in which to make that study and take a decision. If the Government are unfit to take a firm line and give a clear decision on this matter, then they are unfit to govern on anything, and the 6d. should most certainly stay and the Government should most certainly go.
6.43 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): Before coming to the underlying issue of the debate, perhaps I can answer some specific questions. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) asked about the minting of sixpences. The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked for an assurance that, if there was a decision to continue the 6d., sufficient coins would be provided.
Minting of sixpences ceased last summer, but there should be enough in circulation now—about 2,000 million—to last until D-day. There is no question about that. But minting can be resumed at any time if necessary. Secondly, the 2½p coin—an identical specification which could exist side by side with the present 6d.—it is the same in shape, weight and metal, but is of a decimal design—could be minted in due course. So there is no technical problem about the continuation of the 6d.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) about the new ½p and its position in

665
relation to bank accounts. This has nothing to do with whether there is to be a 2½p coin. We know that most banks will not use the new ½p in accounting. It will not be writen on cheques, just as the old ½d. was not written on them, and it will follow that firms will not use it in their accounts.
There is the Whole New Penny Table in the Decimal Currency Act, 1969, which converts £ s. d. amounts to the £ np, showing the whole new penny amounts in various circumstances. This rounds up and clown alternately and again should ensure that, overall, there is no question of increases being necessitated by conversion according to the Whole New Penny Table.
The Decimal Currency Board has emphasised, and will continue to stress, that the new ½p is not a temporary feature and that it is worth more than the old £ s. d. penny. There is little risk of this being ignored. The new ½P. will appear in shoppers' conversion tables and almost 1,000 million new½P.coins have been minted.
My hon. Friend feared that there would be an increase of about 1 per cent. in the cost of living because of decimalisation. I suggest that he is wrong. Exactly the same kind or argument was advanced in Australia and New Zealand.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: They had a different system.
Mr. Taverne: The hon. Gentleman says that they had a different system, but that is a false point in relation to ordinary transactions.
Their basic lowest value unit is the same as that under our system. It was competition between different stores which saw to it that those stores which rounded-up lost goodwill while those which played fair with their customers and saw that the conversion table was properly applied got the benefit of trade. Despite all the fears expressed in Australia and New Zealand it was found during the period following decimalisation that there was no greater increase in the cost of living than there would have been without decimalisation. I suggest, therefore, that there is no reason to fear that decimalisation need lead to price increases.
666
Vending machines have also been mentioned. Apart from the argument about the 6d., the first thing to remember is that the amount of retail sales through vending machines at present is 0·1 per cent of the total of retail sales. To think that, because of the difficulties of adapting vending machines, there will be much increase in the cost of living is misconceived.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) asked that the publicity campaign by the Decimal Currency Board should he brought forward. It is important that the campaign should be correctly timed. If it is brought forward too early it may be forgotten by the time decimalisation takes place. That would be a mistake. It is absolutely right that the publicity campaign should immediately precede decimalisation day and have the maximum impact on the public who will be affected.
The board is in touch with industry and users of adding machines. An article giving advice to users is receiving wide coverage in the trade Press. The board is satisfied that there should be no difficulty on this score. Not all adding machines will be converted by D-Day, but there can be temporary adaptation.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) that there is very close consultation on a day-to-day basis between the Decimal Currency Board and the British Bankers Association Decimalisation Working Party. It is, of course, for the banks to consider their staffs, not for the Government nor the board.
A further question was asked by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), while I was, unfortunately, absent, about possible pressure being put on the banks if the use of the sixpence continues. He asked whether there was any question of pressure being put on them not to give sixpences in change. I assure him that no pressure of any kind will be put on the banks.
The fundamental issues of this debate have, of course, concerned the basic system and the sixpence. The Motion does not refer to the sixpence, but to
"the system of decimalisation of the currency".
It was asked what hon. Members would be voting for on this Motion, since the

667
Opposition intend to press it. We are not asked to vote for retention of the sixpence. It is not a vote for or against the sixpence; we are asked to vote on "the system of decimalization". which appears in the terms of the Motion and which hon. Members opposite have now completely forgotten.
This was a decision taken three years ago and extensively debated. The hon. Member for Worthing frankly said that there is nothing that can be done about the system. In effect, he said that if the Motion were passed it would have no practical effect. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West in an aside, although he did not devote his speech to this, said that the question of the system was the background issue of the debate. One of the most interesting things is the complete equivocation by the Conservative Opposition, and, indeed, by the former Conservative Government. When the Halsbury Committee reported in 1963 and the Government of that time still had some time to run—"run" I might well call it—not a mention was made by Conservatives of the issues which apparently are so clear to them today.
When it came to the system it was rightly said that opinion was divided. There were champions of the £-mil system, a different system, and of course the 10s. system. Hon. Members opposite voted for the £ system. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) made a first-class speech on the subject. No doubt when it comes to voting he will be consistent with the views he expressed in 1967. The main point about the system, and this is what the debate is about according to the terms of the Motion, is that a decision has been taken which was accepted reluctantly by the Opposition. Hon. Members opposite did not oppose it on Third Reading in 1967 and did not oppose the Second and Third Readings of the Decimal Currency Bill in 1969. Although they argued on the details, they accepted the main decision. Since then, they have seen an electoral advantage in changing their minds.
The main issue in the speeches, but not in the Motion, has been the retention of the sixpence. My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave a full explanation
668
of the reasons why it does not seem likely that the sixpence would continue as an important part of the decimal system. Of course, the Government desire the greatest possible degree of public acceptability of the change-over—
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Goodo!
Mr. Taverne: Of course, the Government recognise that there is a strong wave of support for the sixpence, but the Government have to combine and reconcile—[Interruption.] This is a vital matter which my hon. Friends realise—acceptability—
Mrs. Anne Kerr Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Lady must sit down.
Mr. Taverne: The Government recognise—
Mrs. Anne Kerr Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is going. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Taverne: They must reconcile acceptability—
Mrs. Anne Kerr Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mr. Taverne: —with a system which will work effectively and sensibly—
Mrs. Anne Kerr Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must obey.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: On a point of order. If an hon. Member who appears to be very concerned about a particular question rises three times, and attempts to put a point to a Minister on a very crucial matter, does not this amount to a point of order? Would it not be—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with the hon. Lady's point of order. It is a charming point of order, but not one of the Orders of the House.
Mr. Taverne: We have to combine acceptability with a system which will

669
work sensibly. The Government cannot announce offhand that decisions taken will be reversed. They first need the considered view of the Decimal Currency Board, which includes former colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman. We have to consider representations, if any, from those who feel that the sixpence cannot be worked in the new system, because Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer and the Retail Distributors' Association can see no value in the retention of the sixpence in the new system. The board will have to tell us whether it thinks the sixpence should be demonetised after the changeover, but the decision will be a Government decision, not the decision of the board.
The charge comes down to one of vacillation. I am urged to believe that the Conservatives have always been unanimous on this issue, but I will quote the right hon. Gentleman himself. In his speech in 1967, when he was discussing decimalisation of the £ and considering different systems, he rejected the Bank of England case on the very grounds—[Interruption.] I remind the right hon. Gentleman of this because it will be uncomfortable to him—that it was technically unsound to suggest that
one could retain the half-crown and the sixpence with the £, cent and half-cent system. He went on to say:
"Manifestly, this cannot be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1756.]
The right hon. Gentleman did not say that possibly this could not be done, or that probably it could not be done, but that manifestly it could not be done. That was the view of the Opposition in 1968, because when the £-mil system was rejected they did not then stand up for the sixpence and go for the new 2½ pence piece. Not even "Mr. Sixpence" himself, hon. Member for Worthing, did that.
Mr. Francis Pym Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly,
That this House regrets the system of decimalisation of the currency to which Her Majesty's Government has committed this country:—
The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 284.

Division No. 68.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Goodhart, Philip

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Clark, Henry

Goodhew, Victor

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Clegg, Walter

Cower, Raymond

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Grant, Anthony

Astor, John

Corfield, F. V.

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

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

Costain, A. P.

Grieve, Percy

Awdrey, Daniel

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Crouch, David

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Baker, W. H. K. 'Banff)

Crowder, F. P.

Gurden, Harold

Balniel, Lord

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Currie, G. B. H.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Dance, James

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Bessell, Peter

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Biffen, John

Dean, Paul

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Biggs-Davison, John

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

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Black, Sir Cyril

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Blaker, Peter

Doughty, Charles

Hastings, Stephen

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Drayson, G. B.

Hawkins, Paul

Body, Richard

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hay, John

Bossom, Sir Clive

Eden, Sir John

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Braine, Bernard

Emery, Peter

Heseltine, Michael

Brewis, John

Errington, Sir Eric

Higgins, Terence L.

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Eyre, Reginald

Hill, J. E. B.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Farr, John

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fisher, Nigel

Holland, Philip

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Hooson, Emlyn

Bryan, Paul

Fortescue, Tim

Hordern, Peter

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Foster, Sir John

Homby, Richard

Bullus, Sir Eric

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

Hunt, John

Burden, F. A.

Fry, Peter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Iremonger, T. L.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Gibson-Watt, David

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Chataway, Christopher

Glover, Sir Douglas

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Sharpies, Richard

Jopling, Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Silvester, Frederick

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Sinclair, Sir George

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Murton, Oscar

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

Kershaw, Anthony

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Kimball, Marcus

Neave, Airey

Speed, Keith

Kirk, Peter

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Stainton, Keith

Kitson, Timothy

Nott, John

Stodart, Anthony

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Onslow, Cranley

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Lane, David

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Tapsell, Peter

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Lawler, Wallace

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Peel, John

Tilney, John

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

Percival, Ian

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

Peyton, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Longden, Gilbert

Pink, R. Bonner

Vickers, Dame Joan

Lubbock, Eric

Pounder, Rafton

Waddington, David

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

MacArthur, Ian

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Prior, J. M. L.

Wall, Patrick

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Pym, Francis

Walters, Dennis

McMaster, Stanley

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Ward, Dame Irene

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Weatherill, Bernard

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Maddan, Martin

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Maginnis, John E.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wiggin, A. W.

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Marten, Neil

Ridsdale, Julian

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Maude, Angus

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Robson Brown, Sir William

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Mawby, Ray

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Woodnutt, Mark

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Worsley, Marcus

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Royle, Anthony

Wylie, N. R.

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Younger, Hn. George

Miscampbell, Norman

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Montgomery, Fergus

Scott, Nicholas

Mr. R. W. Elliott and

More, Jasper

Scott-Hopkins, James

Mr. Hector Munro.

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Cant, R. B.

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

Alldritt, Walter

Carmichael, Neil

Faulds, Andrew

Allen, Scholefield

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fernyhough, E.

Anderson, Donald

Coe, Denis

Finch, Harold

Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

Coleman, Donald

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Armstrong, Ernest

Conlan, Bernard

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

Ashley, Jack

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Crawshaw, Richard

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Cronin, John

Foley, Maurice

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Barnes, Michael

Dalyell, Tam

Ford, Ben

Barnett, Joel

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Forrester, John

Baxter, William

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Beaney, Alan

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Freeson, Reginald

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Gardner, Tony

Bidwell, Sydney

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Garrett, W. E.

Binns, John

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Ginsburg, David

Bishop, E. S.

Delargy, H. J.

Golding, John

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Dempsey, James

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Booth, Albert

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Boston, Terence

Dickens, James

Gregory, Arnold

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Dobson, Ray

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Bradley, Tom

Doig, Peter

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Driberg, Tom

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Brooks, Edwin

Dunn, James A.

Hamilton, James (Both well)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Dunnett, Jack

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Hannan, William

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

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

Harper, Joseph

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

Eadie, Alex

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Buchan, Norman

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Haseldine, Norman

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

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hattersley, Roy

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Ellis, John

Hazell, Bert

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

English, Michael

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Heffer, Eric S.

672

673

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

McNamara, J. Kevin

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Hilton, W. S.

MacPherson, Malcolm

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Hobden, Dennis

Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)

Roebuck, Roy

Hooley, Frank

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Homer, John

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

Rose, Paul

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mapp, Charles

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Marks, Kenneth

Rowlands, E.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Marquand, David

Ryan, John

Howie, W.

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Sheldon, Robert

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Huckfield, Leslie

Mayhew, Christopher

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Mendelson, John

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Hunter, Adam

Mikardo, Ian

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Hynd, John

Millan, Bruce

Silverman, Julius

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Skeffington, Arthur

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

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Slater, Joseph

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Molloy, William

Small, William

Janner, Sir Barnett

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Snow, Julian

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Spriggs, Leslie

Jeger, George (Goole)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cra3,S.)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Boy (Stechford)

Moyle, Roland

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Strauss, Rt. Hn. John

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

Murray, Albert

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Jonos, Dan (Burnley)

Neal, Harold

Taverne, Dick

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

Newens, Stan

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Norwood, Christopher

Thornton, Ernest

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Oakes, Gordon

Tinn, James

Kenyon, Clifford

Ogden, Eric

Tomney, Frank

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

O'Halloran, Michael

Tuck, Raphael

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

O'Malley, Brian

Urwin, T. W.

Latham, Arthur

Oram, Bert

Varley, Eric G.

Lawson, George

Orbach, Maurice

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Leadbitter, Ted

Orme, Stanley

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Ledger, Ron

Oswald, Thomas

Watkins, David (Consett)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

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

Weitzman, David

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Padley, Walter

Wellbeloved, James

Lee, John (Reading)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Paget, R. T.

Whitaker, Ben

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Palmer, Arthur

White, Mrs. Eirene

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Whitlock, William

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Wilkins, W. A.

Lipton, Marcus

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Loughlin, Charles

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Luard, Evan

Pentland, Norman

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

McBride, Neil

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

McCann, John

Prioe, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

MacColl, James

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Winnick, David

MacDermot, Niall

Price, William (Rugby)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Macdonald, A. H.

Probert, Arthur

Woof, Robert

McElhone, Frank

Rankin, John

Wyatt, Woodrow

McGuire, Michael

Rees, Merlyn

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Richard, Ivor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mackie, John

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Mr. J. D. Concannon

Mackintosh, John P.

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

and Mr. William Hamling.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Before the debate opens, may I announce that I have not selected any of the many Amendments on the Order Paper. This will not affect the debate. I have no doubt that the arguments advanced in the Amendments for not giving the Bill a Second Reading will emerge during the debate, as will other arguments for or against the Bill.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order. I understand that a number of hon. Members have attempted to secure a copy of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill for the purpose of joining in the debate but that no Bills are available in the Vote Office. I would submit that it is not possible to conduct a debate when hon. Members have not got before them the Bill under discussion. How can we follow the arguments or partticipate in the debate if the Greater London Council has failed in its duty to see that an adequate supply of Bills is available for hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am seized of the point of order, which is a serious one. I understand that there was a shortage of the Bills earlier in the day but that shortage has been remedied.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me remind the House that points of order come out of the time we have for discussing the Bill. The debate must end at ten o'clock no matter how many points of order there are.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: Further to that point of order. I am indeed reluctant to take up time which could be spent on discussion, but hon. Members are in a difficult position. I have this moment come from the Vote Office and not one Bill is available there. This puts hon. Members in a difficult position if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr.
676
Wellbeloved) said, we are to give proper and intelligent attention to the many points which I am sure will be made by the promoters of the Bill. It is absolutely essential that the House should have the Bill before it. It is not the fault of hon. Members, other than those seeking to promote the Bill. I ask you to rule that the House ought to adjourn until a more suitable opportunity, when supplies of this document are available.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made the point made by his hon. Friend, a little more forcibly. I am not prepared to rule to adjourn the debate. I understand that further copies are on the way. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has his name to an Amendment to the Bill, which he must have read.
Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order. Am I right in taking it as a criticism that I should put my name to an Amendment but cannot at this moment obtain a Bill from the Vote Office? With the utmost possible respect, the onus is surely on the promoters of the Bill to have copies ready in the Vote Office. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, what you said appeared to be a criticism of me for not having come into the Chamber with a Bill. It is the custom of the House for hon. Members to expect the Vote Office to have a proper supply of Bills.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Member has made. The last thing I would do is to criticise the hon. Member. I was paying him a compliment.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order. I understand that one of your predecessors in a previous Parliament ruled on a similar occasion that if Bills dealing with Private Business were not available in the Vote Office, then the House should not proceed to that Private Business. May I ask you if it is possible to check the precedents to see whether it is possible to give a Ruling in that respect tonight? We are in this difficulty. I have a copy, rather bedraggled and slightly tattered, because I have been working on it. I know that many of my hon. Friends have just come into the Chamber after attempting to get copies of the Bill. It is quite improper for us to proceed without the benefit of the Bill.

677
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) said, it is really not possible for an intelligent, meaningful debate to take place if the G.L.C. has failed so dismally to make the Bill available to hon. Members. In view of the precedent established on a previous occasion I would ask you to rule accordingly.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The mere repetition of the same point of order will not change the mind of Mr. Speaker.
Mr. W. Howie: Further to that point of order. I should like to clear up the difficulty raised by your reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) who, with customary modesty, did not make this point himself. I saw earlier today that he was in difficulty and I loaned him my copy of the Bill because I came here early to obtain one. Because of my customary caution in these matters, and because I like to keep my hands on my own property, I claimed the copy back from my hon. Friend. Now I understand that he is without one.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Member for the biographical information.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order. Hon. Members who do not wish to interfere in this dog-fight in the Greater London Council might nevertheless be called upon to vote this evening and we are in rather a difficult position, because merely looking at the Amendments I cannot see why the promoters have bothered to bring forward the Bill, if it is the kind of Bill it appears to be from the Amendments. We should be able to have copies of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the point made by the hon. Member. Those who are supporting the Bill will be able to ease the hon. Member's mind.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Rossi: I had hoped that it would not have been necessary for me to go into great detail about the Bill, because in accordance with promises given by the Greater London Council last year, an explanatory memorandum was sent to all hon. Members of this House who represent London constituencies as soon as the Bill was deposited. This memorandum, which gives an explanation of each Clause in the Bill, has
678
been in the hands of such hon. Members since 3rd December last, namely, for a total of 11 weeks, with an offer by the Greater London Council to supply any further information that any individual hon. Member required.
It appears that 11 weeks are not sufficient and that some hon. Members feel that the Bill has been brought on with undue haste, with the result that it is being opposed this evening. For this reason I am obliged to take the House through the Bill in some considerable detail. The Bill contains four major provisions and a number of minor provisions which are nevertheless of importance. Nearly all these provisions are the result of representations received from third parties, or of undertakings given to them by the council. If the House is minded to defeat the Bill then the council will be unable to discharge its undertakings and many people will be hurt, apart from the council. I ask the House to bear that consideration in mind when dealing with the provisions of the Bill and in deciding the matter later tonight.
The first of the four main provisions to which I have referred is an extension of certain superannuation rights in fulfilment of promises given to employees of bodies outside the Greater London Council. If the Bill is not passed, these promises cannot be kept.
Mr. Roebuck: Where is the Bill?
Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has received a copy of the memorandum of 3rd December and a personal letter inviting him to make any representations he wishes to make. So far, until this moment, he has not shown a great deal of interest in the Bill.
Mr. Roebuck: It is outrageous that the hon. Gentleman should say that I have not shown a great deal of interest in the Bill. I have put my name to several Amendments. The hon. Gentleman is making a case that the Bill has been in preparation for some time. All I ask is why the Bill is not available in the Vote Office. Is this an example of the efficiency with which the Bill has been prepared?
Mr. Rossi: The Bill has been deposited since 3rd December. Sufficient copies were deposited to meet the normal needs

679
of a debate of this kind. For reasons which the hon. Member knows better than I, there has been an undue demand for copies this year. This is possibly not unconnected with the exercise which is about to take place from the Labour benches in connection with the G.L.C. election in a few weeks' time.
That is a simple explanation of the matter. The hon. Member cannot corn-plain. He was given full details of the Bill in a letter on 3rd December, and he has done nothing since then to seek information if he was puzzled by any of the Clauses in the Bill.
Mr. Roland Moyle: On a point of order. Is it sufficient for a letter or memorandum to be provided to hon. Members in substitution for a Bill? May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether this is a proper substitute for a Bill?
Mr. Speaker: The simple answer is "No," but let us get on with the debate on the Bill.
Mr. R. W. Brown: I wish to come to the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). On several occasions he consulted me, especially on Clause 14, which deals with the powers that are vested for the payment of special funds by the G.L.C. on behalf of the London boroughs. We spent some time together discussing the document, and it is rather unfair of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) to suggest that my hon. Friend has paid no attention to the Bill.
Mr. Rossi: I am sure the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown), with his usual acumen, will have satisfied the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) over the matters that have puzzled him. The memorandum was not intended as a substitute—
Mr. Speaker: Let us leave the memorandum. The Second Reading of the Bill has been moved.
Mr. Rossi: The second major provision is designed to establish a comprehensive code for the installation of statutory undertakers' apparatus in walkways. This
680
is in discharge of an undertaking given by the Greater London Council to this Parliament, to various Ministries and to statutory undertakers. The defeat of the Bill may well discharge the Greater London Council from its undertaking to this House, and the House will no doubt consider, when it votes this evening, whether it wishes to release the Greater London Council from that undertaking.
The third major matter contained in the Bill is the power to authorise the connections of pipes carrying trade effluents into sludge mains, following representations made by the Confederation of British Industry. Here again, the intention is to try to minimise river pollution, a matter on which the House is very anxious. The contributions that will be made by industry for these services and facilities will relieve some of the burden on the ratepayer for the provision of sewerage, drains and the rest.
The fourth matter of major importance in the Bill is the power that is being sought to charge London boroughs direct for contributions made to voluntary organisations instead of recovering these moneys by means of the rate precept. This power is included at the request of the London Boroughs Association, so that these boroughs can exercise a control on their own communal expenditure on such contributions and on the provision and maintenance of hostels for drug addicts. There again, if the Bill is defeated the London Boroughs Association will be very disappointed.
A minor but important provision contained in the Bill is the saving of six houses of some architectural interest in Heathfield Gardens, Wandsworth, which are due to be destroyed in order to extend Wandsworth Common. The Greater London Council is already under a statutory obligation to acquire these houses and to demolish them, but in response to representations made by local bodies and by residents of that area, the Greater London Council has agreed to seek powers so that those houses need not be destroyed but may be preserved. Again, if the Bill is defeated, those local interests will be disappointed.
Another minor but important power that the Bill gives is to make safety regulations controlling the erection of scaffolding in public highways. Hon. Members will have only too well in mind

681
the recent tragedy that occurred not far from here in Whitehall Place, when a great deal of scaffolding collapsed on to the public highway. These powers are sought at the request of the London boroughs, to whom they will be delegated.
Hon. Members will no doubt bear in mind, when considering all these provisions and the source from which they emanate, that a great deal of parliamentary time is being saved by the Greater London Council in including all these matters in its Bill. If the Greater London Council had not agreed to act as a vehicle for these various matters, the House would have to face the presentation of a whole host of Private Bills from many different sources, each dealing with the different matters to which I have referred. I feel sure that, having heard what are the main provisions of the Bill, the House will agree that it is an admirable Measure which should find its way on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
I have tried to correlate under broad headings the provisions of the Bill and to give a generalised explanation, so that hon. Members will have a bird's eye view of the entire Bill. Now, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the Clauses in the Bill seriatim and briefly indicate the main matter in them.
Clause 4 provides for the preservation of Nos. 1 to 6 Heathfield Gardens, which were to be exchange lands for part of Wandsworth Common taken for the Wandsworth Bridge southern approach improvement scheme. It is now considered, because of representations that have been received, that the houses are of sufficient architectural and historical merit to warrant preservation and, accordingly, the council seeks power to preserve these houses. The result will not be the loss of lands for the common, because this will be dealt with in other ways.
Clause 5 is a technical clause dealing with a family settlement. It would cause considerable hardship to the family concerned if the Clause were not accepted by the House. Clause 6 in Part III of the Bill, dealing with superannuation, is one of the major provisions of the Bill. It arises because Section 18 of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1953,
682
enables the council to grant a gratuity to any dependant of an employee who dies in service. Section 34 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1968, extends this power and enables pensions in the form of gratuities to be granted to widows, dependent widowers or children of employees who die within a year of leaving the council service. This power relates to G.L.C. employees, although it may be adopted by the London borough councils. It does not, however, extend to employees of other bodies such as the magistrates' courts committees and probation committee staff, who contribute to the council's superannuation fund. The object of Clause 6 is to give benefits which I have just mentioned to those other persons.
Clause 7 will extend similarly to persons who are employed at polytechnics and who therefore will not be in the direct employment of the Greater London Council. I turn to Part IV of the Bill, Clause 8 of which deals with walkways. The Clause is based on a Section of the Liverpool Corporation Act of 1969 and corrects an omission in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act of 1969 which does not contain a power to regulate the occasional use of walkways by vehicles. Vehicles which may use walkways under Clause 8 are fire-fighting appliances, police vehicles, ambulances and also vehicles of certain classes of disabled persons. Clause 9 merely seeks to remedy a possible ambiguity which could operate to the detriment of developers.
Clause 10 is the important Clause in this part of the Bill and is in discharge of undertakings given to Parliament by the G.L.C. last year. The intention of the Clause is to establish a comprehensive code for the installation of statutory undertakers' apparatus in walkways. The Clause is included in fulfilment of undertakings and after discussion with interested parties.
I must advise the House that agreement has not yet been reached with all the parties on the contents. No doubt this is a matter in which provisions will have to be considered and argued in Committee.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many petitions have been lodged against this Clause?
Mr. Rossi: Yes, I have the information. Petitions have been lodged by the water authorities, the electricity authorities, and I believe by the Post Office. That is my information at the moment. It is a matter of negotiation. I need not trouble the House with Clause 11 which deals with three minor amendments to the walkway provisions of the 1969 Act.
Clause 12 is an important Clause that seeks to authorise connections of pipes carrying trade effluents into main sludge sewers. This would be of help to the G.L.C. and its taxpayers, because it would help to meet the expense of providing and maintaining any major sludge main. Obviously it will be a help to industry and we hope also that it will help the community at large by cutting down pollution in our rivers. Clause 13 is a minor Clause giving extension of time for works in connection with the Waterloo Bridge northern approach improvement scheme which otherwise would expire on 1st October, 1970.
Clause 14 deals with the arrangements between the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association for contributions to voluntary associations which provide services mainly in the health and welfare sectors. At the moment the G.L.C. makes these contributions and charges a rate precept. The London boroughs would prefer to be charged direct so that they would have a greater control over expenditure and would know where the money was going. In addition, the Clause seeks to provide and maintain hostels for drug addicts. Clause 15 deals with safety regulations in regard to scaffolding, and I have already said all I need to say on that Clause. Therefore, I will leave the Bill, which I have covered in general terms and in some detail.
Mr. Howie: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but before he leaves the Bill may I ask a question on Clause 4? In line 37 he will see that the Clause requires something or other coloured pink on the plan to be signed by the chairman of the committee of housing, and then there is a gap in the Bill. Can this omission be explained?
Mr. Rossi: Yes, it is in the usual form. It refers to the deposit of a document which at the time the Bill was printed was not signed but has since been signed. The signature and the details are
684
apparent on the copies of the plans which have been deposited. They are available for inspection and by the time they reach their final form, those details will be printed in.
I should like now to deal with the Amendments. The first deals with sewerage at Thamesmead. I understand that an undertaking has been given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that the G.L.C. will reach a decision on this problem by the summer. But we must bear in mind that that decision must obviously be influenced by the cost of the scheme which, I understand, will be of the order of £22 million. This is not a matter with which the G.L.C. can deal lightly. The fullest possible investigations are being carried out and the matter will be decided by the summer. It is not intended to use the open land mentioned in the Amendment unless an emergency arises, such as the fact that because of industrial action the sludge fleet cannot be used. Nevertheless, the Greater London Council is providing a sludge digestion unit at Crossness which will eliminate the necessity to store raw sludge in open tanks or deposit it on open land, so it is hoped that the nuisance aspect which troubles the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with in that way.
Mr. Wellbeloved: What is the proposed date of completion of the covered digestion tanks at Crossness to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred? Is it to be this year, next year, or 10 years hence?
Mr. Rossi: According to my information, the work is in the design stage and is programmed to be completed by the year 1974–75.
The second Amendment deals with the highly controversial matter of the London motorway network. This is not a matter which is appropriate to a Bill of this nature. It is appropriate to a general debate in the House and to a general debate in London and in the Greater London Council. It is an appropriate matter for decision by the electors of London in a few weeks' time. But, with respect, it would be inappropriate to embark now upon a detailed and general debate of the motorway box, and I will defer that matter.
One can make similar comments about the third Amendment which talks in

685
vague terms of good government and social wellbeing in London. That again is a matter purely for the electors of London who will record their votes in a few weeks' time.
The fourth Amendment relates to flood protection. That is an important matter. The Greater London Council has received a document called the Report on Thames Flood Protection. It is 245 pages in length and is accompanied by appendices of a bulky and technical nature. It has been forwarded to all the interested authorities and bodies concerned with the problem.
The Greater London Council recognises the vital urgency for a positive decision on the protection of London from the grave dangers of flooding, and it is pressing the Government for an early decision to enable the protective works to be put in hand. As soon as the Government give that decision and final details have been agreed on the siting and construction of the barrier, steps will be taken to seek whatever powers are necessary. As the House will appreciate, that will be a matter for a major Bill in its own right, and ought not to be tacked on as an odd Clause in a General Powers Bill.
The fourth Amendment tends to be a compendium of the previous three. All of them contain pure electioneering matter, and I prefer to leave them to the hustings in the Greater London Council election rather than take up the time of the House in dealing with them here.
I have indicated what the Bill contains. I hope that the House will recognise that it proposes a number of very important and valuable measures, the defeat of which will injure more outside bodies and people than it will injure the G.L.C.—if this House is minded to defeat it. It will also discharge the Greater London Council from carrying out the undertakings and obligations given to this House last year.
Wing-Commander Sir Eric Bullus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the record and for history, may I point out that there are now considerably more copies of the Bill available in the Vote Office than there are hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be well advised to leave well alone.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Roland Moyle: We on this side of the House are pleased to see that the Greater London Council has recovered from its earlier incompetence and has provided sufficient copies of the Bill to enable us to conduct a meaningful debate. We can now proceed to discuss the matters which interest my hon. Friends.
I am as reluctant as any hon. Member to detain the House by embarking upon a lengthy discussion of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has deployed a not inconsiderable parliamentary skill in trying to persuade the House of the merits of the Bill, but I have to tell him that his attempts to breathe a little life into the cold earth of this potential legislative Measure have been unsuccessful. If I was minded not to address the House on the various Amendments before the hon. Gentleman spoke, having listened to his contribution. I now feel that I must.
It is not what is in the Bill which worries me. Therefore, I can probably set the mind of the hon. Gentleman at rest by saying that I will not urge my hon. Friends to defeat the Bill, for the very sound reasons which he has advanced. Though, as I say, I do not object to what is in the Bill, I object to what is omitted from it. This is the culmination of three years of Conservative control of London's County Hall. All that I can say is that. despite the best efforts of the hon. Gentleman, his speech and the Bill serve only to emphasise the great gap which exists between the fare that the Greater London Council offers on this occasion and what Londoners have a right to expect from their County Council.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the Amendments seriatim. The one standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) seeks to protect the interests of residents in the Borough of Bexley. I have no doubt that it will be advocated in detail by my hon. Friend in the debate. But the most significant fact about that Amendment is that there is only one name to it, whereas there are three Members of Parliament for Bexley.

687
I can only assume that the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) has found it impossible to protect the interests of the ratepayers in that borough from his friends at County Hall and that their defence will have to rest in the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. Judging from the undertakings which he has received, he appears to be making a very good job of it.
Another of the Amendments protests against the extravagance of and damage likely to be caused by the proposed motorway network. We have drawn attention to the fact that Londoners have not had proper information to enable them to form a view on the flood protection measures which are before the Greater London Council. There is every danger that those measures will go through without adequate public debate.
The last Amendment is in general terms, and the most important part of it from my point of view is the Greater London Council's proposals for breaking up its own highly efficient and very useful and attractive parks set-up in London and dispersing their control amongst an assortment of London borough councils which may or may not deal efficiently with the resulting problems.
Mr. Roebuck: We have heard a great deal about rates and ratepayers. Has my hon. Friend applied his mind to the possibility that, if the administration of parks is broken up in this way, it may result in a great deal of duplication and thus heavier burdens for ratepayers in Greater London?
Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend has obviously brought his usual acumen to bear on the problem. I shall have something to say about this later, and I think that my hon. Friend will find that I agree substantially with the point that he has just put to me.
One matter that greatly disturbs me is that there is no reference in the Bill to the provision of London housing. After three years of Conservative control of County Hall I find this quite remarkable. Housing is the major problem facing London. The point that we should consider tonight is: has the Greater London Council got sufficient powers to provide a good housing policy for London? If it has not, it ought to be asking for extra
688
powers tonight. If it has the powers, why has it got London housing into such a ghastly muddle?
Over the three years of Conservative control the situation has continued to deteriorate. I wonder how a body of presumably sincere men and women could, of their own volition, if they have adequate powers, end up with a housing policy in London in the state of disorder that it has reached. The object of the Greater London Council, I am sure everybody will agree, is, after all, to serve the inhabitants of London. But what do we find? We find that a part of the council has, over the past few months, spent a considerable time working out how it can bring the forces of law to bear on a number of the inhabitants to get them into a position where it can threaten them either with imprisonment or some other dire consequences. This is not service to the inhabitants of London as I have been brought up to understand it in the Labour movement.
What is the reason? It is simply that, on the one hand, it has always been the priority of the Labour Party, both nationally and locally, and particularly when it had power on the Greater London Council and its predecessor the London County Council, to place the housing of the people of London and the country as a whole at the top of the list. For this purpose, it was prepared to provide aid from public bodies and funds and to legislate to ensure that this housing programme was carried out.
The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has adopted a policy of removing help and support from all sections of housing. I believe that the Conservatives want to get out of the housing business to the greatest extent and as quickly as possible. It has been tried in London over three years. The result has been the distasteful scenes and stories which we have all read in our London evening newspapers over the last year. If there was any policy guaranteed to prejudice law and order in the capital city of this great country, it has been the rents policy of the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. R. W. Brown: Does my hon. Friend also recognise that the vice-chairman of the Housing Committee of the

689
Greater London Council refuses to accept responsibility for the rents of the authority? He blames the officers. The Tories have not even the courage to stand up and be counted for what they are doing.
Mr. Moyle: I regard that as the negation of democratic government. The reason we stand for election and are prepared to advocate policies is to protect some of our long-serving and conscientious public servants from bitter personal criticism. It is our responsibility to stand up to the attacks on our policies and to persuade people to accept them. It is not the responsibility of paid officials, either of national or local government, to carry that kind of burden.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will disagree when I say that the Greater London Council, when the Conservatives took control, set out to increase rents in London by 70 per cent. over three years. To do them credit, that was the policy on which they fought the election. They have done their best, since they have been in power, to put that policy into operation. If they have been thwarted in that policy, the sole reason is because the Government have stepped in to limit the size of the increases which they wished to impose upon the rent payers of London occupying G.L.C. properties.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how wide it is possible to go in the debate? I understood that the hon. Gentleman was making such criticism as he thought fit of the general administration of the Greater London Council, irrespective of any provision in the Bill. He has now passed to arguing in favour of the housing policy of the Government. May I take it that if the hon. Gentleman is allowed to refer in favourable terms to the housing policy of the Government, it will be open to hon. Members on this side who have the good fortune to catch your eye at a later stage to criticise the policy of the Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The question of order on Second Reading, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that the debate is very wide, but it should be related to
690
the Bill—in this case a general powers Bill. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) has been seeking to deal with matters that he wishes were in the Bill, and I find it difficult to rule out of order anything that he has said. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will have the same latitude in replying as the hon. Gentleman had in speaking.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order. I understand that Ruling to cover its being open for any of my hon. Friends who catch your eye, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North having referred in favourable terms to the housing policy of the Government, and who take a different view of it, to refer to it in distinctly less favourable terms. I take it that that follows from your Ruling and from your permitting the hon. Gentleman to do this.
Mr. Howie: Further to that point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that he would be able to refer, in favourable or unfavourable terms, if he wishes, to that policy. I hope that hon. Members will relate their remarks to the Bill, although it is a wide debate.
Mr. Howie: Further to that point of order. If it is in order for the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to refer to the Government's housing programme in general, and in critical terms, may I ask whether it would be in order for him at the same time to point out that is very much better than the housing programme of the Government of which he was a member for so many graceful years?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Happily, it is the practice of the Chair never to rule hypothetically. I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen ought to allow the debate to go ahead and allow the Chair to decide as the debate proceeds whether a matter is in order or not.
Mr. Moyle: I am fortified and encouraged by the course of action on which I had embarked by the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. Since it was the implication of that intervention that it was the Government's action which

691
restricted the increase in rents which the Greater London Council was set upon effecting. It is all of a piece. After all, the Tories failed to operate the option mortgage scheme when they had power, and they want to remove rent control from private property. The logic of their policy is that they will seek, if they are ever returned to power, to remove income tax relief on the interest payments of owner-occupiers. They are seeking to remove State and public support from housing of all kinds.
How long do the Conservatives think that they can maintain a situation where the only section of the population which would obtain relief from the State in respect of housing would be what is generally regarded as the better off, the private owner-occupier buying a house on mortgage and paying interest payments? The alternative is the Labour policy of maintaining help to hold down rents, of maintaining the option mortgage scheme, and of assistance to all forms of housing, because we believe that the proper housing of the population is one of the first priorities that any Government should accept.
Another point which disturbs me about the Bill is the omission of any powers to enable the G.L.C. successfully to manage the properties which it holds. If we had an active G.L.C. as opposed to the rather supine body which exists at present, in perhaps 10 years the London housing problem could be solved, and we could look forward to the G.L.C. spending more time on the management and administration of its estates.
One of the greatest problems in the management of estates is effecting a transfer from one council property to another. This is, I believe, one of the greatest restrictions on the liberty of the subject in this country. To draw a parallel, if an owner-occupier wishes to move his house, the decision is his. It may cost him time and money, but in the end he will effect it and he will probably move to an area which he prefers.
But the position is quite different for an inhabitant of a council property. When he wants to change his place of residence he is very much in the position which we were all in when we were in the Armed Forces. His fate rests with a large, faceless, inhuman bureaucracy. He may say
692
that he wants a transfer, but whether he gets one under the present administration depends entirely on the skill or energy or sense of urgency of officials of the G.L.C. They have not yet succeeded—and, so far as I can see, they have been given no leadership in this matter—in producing a scheme to allow council tenants to transfer from one property to another with the minimum of fuss and inconvenience, and roughly when they want.
It was while I was conducting a campaign in my constituency about one estate, the Heath Side Estate, where the problem of transfers is particularly bad and there had been some Press publicity, that the Conservative chairman of the South-East London Housing Committee was so bold as to say that he thought that council tenants were "mollycoddled". If the situation which I have just described is mollycoddling, it is about time that we got rid of the Conservative chairman of that committee and most of his colleagues as well. They have no sense of human sympathy whatsoever. But a lack of compassion is one of the major criticisms which I would make of the Greater London Council under its present administration.
Mr. R. W. Brown: Would my hon. Friend allow me to remind him, also, that, as part of the skilful management by the Conservatives on the G.L.C., by raising the rents, as in my constituency, to £6, £7 and £8 a week, they are forcing people who cannot afford to pay that much to go into property which still has a bath in the kitchen? They excuse themselves by saying that when it is not in use it has a top on it.
Mr. Moyle: I take my hon. Friend's point.
Only last Sunday morning, when canvassing in my constituency, I came across a whole group of council houses which still have baths in the kitchen. There is no programme that I can discover on the books of the G.L.C. to convert these properties to an outside bath or a bathroom upstairs. I am taking this matter up with the G.L.C. and I hope that there will be a swift response to my proposal that a conversion programme be put into operation for all these properties. Having a lid on the bath is no help to the housewife. That is the only way that she can

693
live in the kitchen because the kitchens are so small that the bath takes up about half of them.
Mr. Roebuck: Is it not a fact that, if the Greater London Council was sufficiently aware of these matters, it would be able to get assistance in improving all sorts of properties from Her Majesty's Government as part of the beneficial measures which they have introduced?
Mr. Moyle: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the situation altogether. The Conservative G.L.C. and the entire Conservative Party want to get out of housing as quickly as they can in the most effective way—
Mr. R. W. Brown: And at the cheapest price.
Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend is right to call attention to the terms of our Amendment.
I want to turn from housing to motorways, because that is the subject of earnest and serious consideration by constituents in South-East London. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) present. He has also been afflicted by the present proposals of the G.L.C. My constituency will be subjected to two of these destructive monsters if the plans of hon. Members opposite and their friends in County Hall go through.
There is a peculiar situation in my constituency. Half my constituents are continually writing to me to draw attention to the inadequacies of the public transport system, for which the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite are now responsible. When I take up the inadequacies drawn to my attention, sometimes I make progress and sometimes I do not.
If I do not, the point often put to me is that this would cost several thousand pounds as in the case of Hither Green Station, for instance, or £4 or £5 million, or, for widening and increasing the capacity of Borough Market Junction, £20 million. This is always regarded as a major obstacle to effecting any improvement in London's public transport.
But the other half of my constituents are always "screaming blue murder" to me because their homes will be destroyed by some of the motorway monsters which
694
the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite are determined to thrust down the throats of good, honest, hard-working Londoners, who have spent many years putting money into their houses and are proud of them and proud to call them homes.
My solution to this problem is so blindingly simple that, if the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite were not so closely tied to the vested interests which will make such a vast amount of money out of the motorway projects, it would already have occurred to them. It is that they should scrap a large portion of the plans for the motorway network, for which they will have to provide not £10 million or £20 million, but hundreds of millions and possibly thousands of millions of pounds.
If they scrapped the network, most of the money could be saved and a small portion devoted to improving the standards of public transport in our great capital city. The net result is that public transport would be better. Thus, people who write to me complaining of its inadequacies would cease to do so and the other portion of my constituents who write complaining of the destruction which threatens their homes would also have nothing more to grumble about. In my constituency and, I assume, in those of most other hon. Members, at least on this side and probably on the other side as well, there would be peace and quiet and good government.
Another point in relation to the motorways scheme is that this year is European Conservation Year. In Britain and, with such resources as they can muster, in Europe, Governments will be devoting their attention to trying to preserve our environment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with his usual concern for the public weal, has already given the nation a great lead on this matter and has appointed a senior Cabinet Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), to look after this side of national policy and to effect it.
It is very interesting that certain hon. Members met in Surrey not so long ago. After their meeting at some gracious hotel in the Surrey suburbs, not one word emerged on the subject of the preservation of the environment.

695
Indeed, it is no wonder that the Conservative-controlled G.L.C. should take its cue from its leaders. In my constituency, and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), we have what is probably the finest urban environment in London south of the river—the Blackheath and Greenwich Conservation Area. It was made a conservation area because the London boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich wanted it, in the days when they were Labour-controlled, because the G.L.C. wanted it, in the days when it was Labour-controlled, and because a Labour Minister of Housing and Local Government approved the idea.
This is European Conservation Year, and yet the planners at County Hall, which is under the control of the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite, are planning to crucify that conservation area by putting through it, not one eight-lane motorway, but a total of 14 tracks of motorway in a distance of 1½ miles. I cannot understand how the G.L.C. allowed this Bill to appear before the House without taking the extra power which it obviously needs for the protection of conservation areas, because it has been unable to stand up to the pressures of its own engineers and preserve part of London's finest heritage. It is a disgraceful exercise in town planning, and shows a complete lack of order and good government, but this is the sort of thing which we have come to expect from the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite in their control of County Hall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) raised some relevant points about the transfer of parks from the G.L.C. to the boroughs. This arises from a pure piece of doctrinaire thinking on the part of those now in control of County Hall. For reasons best known to themselves, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were putting the London Government Bill, 1963 through the House, a Measure which was fathered solely by them and had few friends on this side of the House, and to which most of our present troubles can be traced, they included a Clause which said that in due course parks should be taken away from the G.L.C. and handed to the borough councils.
I have a vested interest in this matter, because I was asked to be the honorary
696
president of the South London Save-Our-Parks Committee, a post which I accepted because I could see the defects of the scheme which hon. Gentlemen opposite had written into the 1963 Act. It was an all-party body, consisting of sportsmen, Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals. I even received letters from Communists asking me to join the committee. We have held meetings in South-East London, and I know that there is tremendous opposition to the proposals put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As far as I can see, once the parks have transferred from the G.L.C. to the boroughs the average Londoner will see no improvement in his parks. All that will happen is that in my Borough of Lewisham the rate in the £ will go up by 3d. What else will happen? Parks are no better than the men who look after them, and the men who look after them are no better than the terms and conditions of service which they are given, and the training which they receive.
Mr. Anthony Berry: The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1963 London Government Act. Does he recall that there has been another London Government Act since his party came to power, which put off local elections by a year? If he feels so strongly about this issue, could not a Clause have been inserted in that Bill to meet the point that he is making about the parks?
Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman was very effectively answered by myself, and others, at the time on the question of the London Government elections. If the hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to read the speeches made at that time, there is little that I can do now to lighten the purblind ignorance with which he graces the proceedings of this House.
The parks of London have been maintained by means of a central training system for park keepers and their supervisors. They have central negotiating machinery which is manned by members of the National Union of Public Employees, amongst others. The terms and conditions of service for the park staff are not as good as I should like to see, but they are far better than the employees can expect with the fragmented schemes which may result if the

697
whole parks organisation is broken up. If it is broken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite, all that we can expect is an increase in the borough rates and a deterioration in the standard of upkeep which we have been led to expect in the London parks which are enjoyed by so many Londoners.
Two years ago, when the G.L.C. General Powers Bill of that year was discussed in the House, I moved a series of Amendments to secure an improvement in the council's superannuation scheme. At that time the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford), who was speaking on behalf of County Hall, said that it would not be possible for the G.L.C. to introduce the improvements which I was suggesting because the Government had ruled them out of order on the ground that they were preparing a review of the social security system. Indeed, that was confirmed during the debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who was then the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He said that the Government took the view that the provisions were untimely and premature because of their imminent proposals arising out of their review of the social security system. I therefore withdrew my Amendments.
But the situation has altered. Not only have the Government brought forward their White Paper outlining their proposals for improving the national superannuation scheme, but they have been included in a Bill which was given a Second Reading by the House, and which is now before a Committee upstairs receiving detailed consideration. But where are the provisions which were so evident two years ago for improving the G.L.C. superannuation scheme? No doubt the provisions of Clause 6 of the Bill will be well received by those who will benefit from them, but they represent a minority.
What has happened to the proposal to increase widows' pensions from one-third of the pension to which their husbands were entitled to one-half? There is no sign of that in the Bill. What has happened to the extension of widow's pensions and children's allowance to employees transferred from other county councils, such as the Kent County Coun-
698
cil, a portion of which was taken over by the G.L.C. in 1964?
Two years ago there was a provision which would have allowed a woman employee with an incapacitated husband to be treated as a male employees for the purposes of contributions and benefit. What has happened to that provision? There is no sign of it now. There was a proposal that we should increase benefits for contributory service beyond 40 years to two-sixtieths for each year, instead of by one-sixtieth. There is no sign of that. That has been sunk without trace.
The idea was also mooted two years ago that redundancy pensions should be payable after the age of 50, instead of 55, but, again there is nothing about that. I could go on with other examples. There were other proposals which hon. Gentlemen opposite put forward two years ago, but which have now been removed from human ken. There was a proposal that re-employed pensioners who received the top limit of the salary of their old posts should receive the top limit of the salaries now carried by their old posts.
There is no sign of that in the Bill, and yet, as I have been emphasising, the entire provisions of the Government's review of the national superannuation scheme are well known. Why is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not taken this opportunity to press the Amendments which I urged on them, and which they said could not be accepted only because the Government's view was that everything should await the review of the national superannuation scheme?
Finally, it was suggested by me at that time, and hon. Gentlemen opposite gave no sign that they objected in principle, that frozen pensions should be granted after the age of 50 after 25 years' service rather than at the age of 55. One sinister explanation occurs to me. It is that hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to put their names, if they could, to these good proposals for improving the Greater London Council staff superannuation scheme when they knew the Government would not accept them and, therefore, that they could throw political criticism at the Government for not doing so at a time when the Government's hands were tied by the impending review of the national superannuation scheme. When

699
hon. Gentlemen opposite know that there is some risk that the Government might accept these improvements they do not put them in the Bill and press them in the House.
If any hon. Gentleman opposite is willing to deny that this is the case I am willing to give way so that he can explain why these provisions are not in the Bill. If they do not give me a satisfactory explanation, I shall have to think the worst of them.
The Bill is the culmination of three years of Conservative government at County Hall. I am sure that we will agree, on reflection, that it is a pathetic Bill, notable only for its omissions and nothing else. Who among the general London electorate can remember what good Conservative government at County Hall has done for London over the past three years? Nobody. The Bill is the culmination of three years of classic incompetence by the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite, after 30 years of steady progress under Labour rule. It is the culmination of three years in which the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite have earned only one reputation, the ability to set up a loud howl when anything happens and to blame everybody but themselves for their own mistakes and shortcomings.
Over the last three years the friends of the hon. Gentlemen opposite have become adept at using the old lags' cry across the world and down through the ages, "It wasn't us. We was framed." That is all they can say every time they are in trouble. I believe that the Tory old lags' cry will have the same appeal to honest men and women in London as the old lags' cry has always had throughout the ages and in every country, and that it will be greeted on 9th April by a healthy scepticism and a determination that they do not want to hear the old lags' cry any longer.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Berry: I am always pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. R. Moyle) even though he called me purblind. I have not been called that before. It is an interesting word. He recalled the discussions we had at the time of the London Government Act during the debates on which I made a num-
700
ber of interventions, as he did. I forecast at that time that forcing through a postponement of the London borough elections by one year would have only one effect on the electorate; and what happened was exactly as I had forecast. In my own London Borough of Enfield at that time we had 31 Labour councillors and 29 Conservative councillors. After we were allowed to have an election we had 51 Conservative councillors and nine Labour councillors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is the London Borough of Haringey they came down to seven Labour councillors as compared with 53 Conservatives. So much for the effects of that postponement. We all know very well what happened in last year's election and what will happen on 9th April this year.
Mr. Moyle: It is perfectly obvious from what the hon. Gentleman has said that there was no thought of gerrymandering on this side and that it was a purely electoral decision. He is confirming that.
Mr. Berry: If the hon. Gentleman was so convinced that it was right to have done that, I remind him that the London borough elections will be coming up this year and he will have a chance to show my borough and others that Labour Government works, ha! ha!
It is a rare treat in these days to find myself supporting a Bill. Since I have been in this House there have not been many occasions when I could do so. I must admit that I came here today after having read the Bill in great detail and made inquiries into it. The first thing I realised from the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham was that the one thing needed was not a discussion of the Bill itself, for he hardly mentioned it.
Mr. Moyle: Why does not the hon. Member say something about it?
Mr. Berry: Apart from mentioning the long list of Amendments that have been put down, his speech contained little about the Bill. But the hon. Member for Lewisham has decided to open the G.L.C. campaign here in the House of Commons. If he wishes, so be it. No doubt he will see that his local paper next week will

701
print his speech in full, and his constituents, or his few supporters among them, may or may not be impressed, [Interruption.] I am following the hon. Gentleman in what he said even if, speaking from his usual sedentary position, he does not like it.
I want to go straight on to the question of motorways. It is easy for Members like myself, who have no motorway proposed in their area, to speak with a more detached view than others, but I happen to believe that the principle of the motorway box system is right and that the G.L.C., during its three years of Government, has gone a long way towards carrying out its declared intention of getting London moving. Anybody driving as I do up Cromwell Road and along the roads leading from the airport must realise how tremendously traffic has speeded up during the past few years. Full credit to the G.L.C. for that. One has to remember the troubles they have had because of the incompetence of central Government.
To give just one example, I have been pressing now for about two years, if not longer, for a decision about a rail or underground link with Heathrow Airport. As soon as the jumbo jets were first announced as being due to start this year I began asking the Minister of Transport when this decision was to be taken, because it was obvious that the extra traffic coming to and from London by road would cause still further congestion on the outskirts of London, on that side, and in central London.
I have continued to question the Minister of Transport. His last Answer in November was that he hoped to give a decision early in this year. I let one possible Question go, but I have put down another for next Tuesday. I may get an answer, I may not, but this is something for which the G.L.C. cannot be blamed. It has improved some of its roads, but congestion in that part of London is due to the failure of central Government to take a decision one way or another on a rail or underground link. I am not pushing one or the other, but a decision must be taken. It is vital for Londoners that that should happen.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Lewisham, North accuse my hon. Friends of lacking compassion, for he
702
usually speaks sincerely. He must know that we have sympathy and compassion for any householder if it is necessary to demolish his house for a development. The motorway box system will require 15,000 houses to be demolished and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have sympathy and compassion for each one of the households that will be affected.
That being so, I agree that full compensation must be paid. The G.L.C. is well aware of this. The council is equally aware that great attention must be given to householders who, while their homes may not be immediately affected, or their gardens removed, will suffer from the amenity point of view; for example, as a result of noise caused by traffic on new roads. It is, therefore, essential that a thorough investigation is made into, for example, sound-proofing and the provision of grants.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the question of compensation, because I agree that full and equal-value compensation should be given to people who are dispossessed as a result of G.L.C. policies. Would he explain why the G.L.C. has not included provisions to ensure the proper payment of compensation to Londoners who are dispossessed as a result of its policies?
Mr. Berry: I am not sure that a Bill of this kind is the right vehicle for such provisions.
Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friend is right. Compensation is a matter essentially for national and not local authority legislation. If the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is so interested in the question of compensation, perhaps he will be in attendance on Friday, 27th February, to support a Bill in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) intends to deal with this subject.
Mr. Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I, too, hope that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends will be here Friday week and will vote for the Bill to which my hon. Friend referred by about 3 o'clock, because I have the Bill following that one. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this is not the sort of Bill for that type of legislation. Compensation is a central

703
Government matter and when the Conservatives form the next Government this will be one of the first issues with which we will deal.
At the time of the last G.L.C. elections the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services conceived the idea of morning sittings of the House. Those meetings did not work quite as he had intended, partly, no doubt, because we were able to obtain a few Adjournment debates on subjects which the Government probably did not expect would be raised. On the Monday morning before those elections I had an Adjournment debate on the sale of council houses. I forecast what would happen and my forecast came true. The G.L.C. has not been able to sell as many council houses as it had hoped, the reason being that it has been prevented from doing so by the Government.
An hon. Gentleman opposite suggested earlier that the Conservatives wanted to "get out of housing". If desiring to see more people owning their own homes is getting out of housing, I cannot imagine what hon. Gentlemen opposite would regard as getting into housing. We want to see more people owning their own homes and, when we have a decent Government, that will happen.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made great play about various matters that are not in the Bill. They should reflect that they did not take advantage of the courteous offer that was made last December to suggest to the G.L.C. any provisions which they thought should be in the Bill. When, as I hope, this Measure is in Committee, hon. Members will have ample opportunity, because of the special procedure that applies to Bills of this kind, to make suggestions. Had the sort of matters that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to see in the Bill been included, they would still have objected to the Measure, and that is probably why they did not make any suggestions.
The big trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have never forgiven the people of London for voting primarily Conservative at the last G.L.C. elections. They cannot forgive them now because they know in their hearts that they will do the same at the next elections. Meanwhile, hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing
704
their best to halt the progress which the G.L.C. wants to make. By putting obstructitons in its way, they hope that the G.L.C. will be obliged to break its promises to the people of London.
This is a small but important Bill and I wholeheartedly support it. Only when we get a Conservative Government who will be in a position to support an overwhelmingly Conservative G.L.C. will the G.L.C. and the people of London gain the credit and advantages that they deserve.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) for his very able and comprehensive speech. I am not so sure that it was the beginning of an election campaign for the G.L.C. I think that our case in this respect has yet to be deployed, but my hon. Friend did show the general line on which our attack can be made.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), for the very skilful way in which he explained the various Clauses of this rather timid Bill. Some of us who have seen him in action in the House before have discovered that this evening he was not in a particularly combative mood. The hon. Gentleman was in a rather subdued mood, which I think I prefer, and I can well understand that mood because of the nature of the Bill. By now the House will have gained the impression that there is a great deal of criticism of matters which are not touched upon at all in the Bill rather than of some of the Bill's Clauses. I should like to ask about a number of detailed points in the Bill and, after that, I shall go on to say something of a more general nature about matters which, unfortunately, are not included.
There is a proposal in Clause 12 to amend Part 2 of the 1969 Act to allow means for the conveyance of sewage sludge to carry trade effluents. As the hon. Gentleman told the House there is support for this proposal from the Confederation of British Industry. It is important that certain types of trade effluent do not go into the River Thames. During the passage of the 1969 Act, undertakings were given by the G.L.C. to the river authorities, interested county boroughs and the Port of London Autho-

705
rity to the effect that no sludge main outfall would be constructed so as to discharge directly into the tidal waters or any stream as defined by Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951.
In any case, my understanding is that if any such outfall was desired—and perhaps my hon. Friend on the Front Bench can enlighten me on this—further legislation would be required to authorise it. However, I understand that the G.L.C., in consultation with the Government Departments concerned, is thinking of a long-term proposal for the provision of a sludge main outfall into the sea 8 or 9 miles off the North-East Kent coast. Meanwhile, I take it that the powers under the 1969 Act—as amended if the Bill goes through tonight—can be used for the construction of a sludge main either to land outfalls or to link certain of the council's disposal works.
The Amendment being sought to the Bill is being promoted at the request of the Confederation of British Industry. Part of its case, as I understand, is that there are cases where industrial effluents, because of their nature and quality, should not be disposed of in the local sewers, but perhaps, after suitable treatment—and also subject to some financial payment, I understand—can be transmitted to a convenient sludge main.
My question is whether the G.L.C. will retain absolute control. This is important. I should like elucidation from the hon. Member for Hornsey. Does he feel able to give an assurance that the G.L.C. will retain absolute control?
Mr. Rossi: The G.L.C. would be very much concerned to know the nature of the effluent going into its sludge mains before reaching any agreement with any industrialist.
Mr. Williams: I am grateful for that assurance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us when the working party set up by the G.L.C. to consider the whole question of the disposal of industrial sludges and toxic wastes is likely to make its recommendations known.
I want now to refer to some omissions from the Bill, particularly in relation to Part II, which concerns land. It is well known that, for the past few years, there have been increasing demands for land to be allocated for development, par-
706
ticularly of residential properties. I want to relate an experience I had which has some bearing on the question of omissions from the Bill and is concerned with the direct responsibility of the G.L.C.
About two and a half years ago, I asked the Brixton School of Building to undertake for me a feasibility study for the development of the Rainham Marshes. I did this because I understood that neither the Borough of Havering nor the G.L.C. had prepared any detailed plans. The G.L.C. had thought in some general conception of development of the marshes, but beyond that no detailed plans existed up to that time.
After six months' study, the school recommended that I should ask a reputable firm of consultants and architects to undertake a professional study of the area and so, purely personally as a Member of Parliament, I appointed a reputable firm to tell me what was possible in terms of a feasibility study of the Rainham Marshes. It reported two years later. I have the report here. I circulated over 50 copies, including some to the G.L.C. and the Borough of Havering. I must say that the attitude of the G.L.C. was one of intense interest because the proposals I made were not dissimilar from proposals which were to come some months later in respect of the St. Catherine's dock development.
It is clear that the opportunity for an international trade centre, coupled with housing, a conference centre and other developments, could be ideally sited by the River Thames. Whether it would be in place of the old St. Catherine's dock, or whether it could be sited on the Rainham Marshes, is, no doubt, an argument that could be debated, but I am of the opinion, following my study and the report submitted to me, that the Rainham Marshes provide an excellent opportunity for a development which would fit in with the new Foulness complex which may include both facilities for docking and facilities for the third London airport. I do not want to anticipate the decision of the Roskill Commission in this respect, but most people would be prepared to say that there is a chance that the lower reaches of the Thames will be the site of the third London airport. If that is the case, the Rainham Marshes will be in an ideal position for development.

707
Even more interesting, however—and this is why it is such a pity that the Bill does not refer more to the question of development of land—the site would be ideal for mixed development. My town planners estimate that we could house about 50,000 people at Rainham. We could house them without knocking down any buildings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will know, this is marshland and ideal for development. The whole project is a matter for debate. I hope that the Borough of Havering, which is also studying plans, will be able at least to decide in principle that development is possible.
The whole project is likely to be threatened if the Thames barrier controversy is not decided in one way or another. Of course, I am not complaining that this particular aspect is not dealt with in the Bill, but I think that it has some bearing on my argument for the development of Rainham Marshes. If the barrier is above Rainham, the possibility of flooding will be greatly increased there and any buildings will be at risk. Therefore, I wish to touch briefly on the question of the Thames barrier controversy. I think that the G.L.C. should consult local boroughs on this question, because the siting of the barrier should be at the top end of Long Reach and not in Woolwich Reach.
I hope that when the G.L.C. consult the Borough of Havering and perhaps other—
Mr. Wellbeloved: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Greater London Council made available the Thames flood report to such Members of Parliament as my hon. Friend who is interested in the river in respect of development so that his planning consultants could study it, that would be better than keeping the report secret, as the council appears to be doing at present?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) has said that he does not complain that this matter is not in the Bill and that makes it difficult for me to rule him in order. He can argue that things in the Bill should not be there or that matters not in the Bill should be included
708
but when he gets outside these propositions it is difficult for me to rule him in order.
Mr. Williams: I realise that some of my criticisms might be misconstrued by hon. Members opposite as slightly on the unfair side—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not concerned with the quality of the hon. Member's remarks, but whether they are in order, and they are not in order.
Mr. R. W. Brown: When he gets his consultants to look at the feasibility of using Rainham Marshes, will my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) consider that in the Borough of Islington there are two prisons and that we are trying desperately to export one of them? Will he consider whether it would be possible to build a prison on that land which is free from housing congestion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is out of order.
Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and Luton (Mr. Howie) which refers to the Thames flood report and the provision of that report to the citizens of London so that consultations can take place between Greater London Council and citizens. Mr. Speaker did not rule that Amendment out of order. May I take it, therefore, that it is in order to make at least some reference to the Thames flood report in this debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question of order is a matter for the Chair. It is perfectly correct that the point the hon. Member has enunciated is in order, but the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) was going rather wider than that.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: If I may, I wish to answer the brief point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown), so that there may be no misunderstanding in my constituency. I think that my constitutents would be wholly opposed to building a prison on Rainham Marshes.
I go back to my main criticism that it is a great pity there is no provision in the

709
Bill for improvement of the River Thames, particularly as 18 months ago Greater London Council held an interesting conference in the Festival Hall dealing with the development of the river in its amenity and commercial senses. That sparked off many interesting studies and a number of organisations have prepared respective plans for improvement of the Thames. It is a very important part of the whole question of the development of land to see the problem comprehensively.
There is no doubt that as time goes by the G.L.C. will get an increasing share of responsibility for the Thames. Hitherto, this has been the prerogative of the Port of London Authority. It is an easy guess that it is the intention of the Port of London Authority or the new Ports Authority—whatever it will be called—to get rid of some of its responsibilities for the upkeep of the river. This is certainly true of the upper reaches, and it is likely to be extended to the lower reaches. Therefore, at some time—certainly next year—the House will be faced with the need for legislation in this respect.
It is a great pity that the many initiatives started after the conference at the Festival Hall have not been followed up by the G.L.C. If I may offer one party political criticism, we have seen the technique of public relations at work in respect of Government and County Hall, which is damaging for the whole political process. One may gain in the short term, but in the long run one stands exposed. There is no doubt that in the next few months the electors will be faced with a choice. I hope that they will go to the polls bearing in mind that a great opportunity is presented for a governing party in County Hall which is prepared to use its imagination to make the River Thames one of the great attractions of London and to make sure that it can be developed commercially and for amenity. I do not think that there are many hon. Members representing London constituencies who would dissent from that.
The Bill is timid and in many ways irrelevant, but it does not arouse sufficient opposition for us to go into the Lobby against it. We only hope that next year the Greater London Council can do better.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: The House might wish to have the guidance of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, so it I rise now it is not to curtail the debate in any way but to enable him to see what the Opposition Front Bench thinks about the Bill so that he can provide the answers.
It has been obvious from the Motions on the Order Paper and the tenor of the debate that the procedure of the House in opposing Private Bills is being used on this occasion for party political purposes. I acquit the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) and Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) from that charge, because they have constituency problems and grievances. Apart from them, the opposition does not seem to have been to the contents or merits of the Bill. Indeed, I understood that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said that he has no quarrel with the contents. Indeed, he found them very satisfactory. The opposition has been to the Greater London Council because it is a Conservative Council. It is opposition that I suppose will be mounted to any Bill the G.L.C. brings before the House; it is an electioneering exercise.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North wound up his peroration by specifically referring to 9th April. The hon. Member said that there had been no reference in the Bill to provision of housing in London and claimed that the intention of the Opposition in this House, and the Conservatives in the Greater London Council, was to remove help and support from housing. Nothing could be further from the truth and the facts. The position about Greater London housing is that the London boroughs are primarily the housing authorities and they build about 15,000 houses a year. The G.L.C. has built 5,000 houses in 1968–69 and is stepping that up to 7,000 a year. It has acquired a number of dwellings outside London for the elderly and has modernised 1,600 houses over the past year. It has taken up nominations in new towns so that Londoners have been housed outside London to the extent of 5,000 families last year.
It has given substantial help to housing associations and has just stepped up the figure to £25 million a year over the

711
next three years. During 1968–69 the G.L.C. enabled over 27,000 families to improve their living conditions, either by moving from new houses to modernised, converted and rehabilitated dwellings, or to dwellings outside London, in the new towns and elsewhere. It is quite untrue to say that the G.L.C. has not paid proper attention to housing. The hon. Member said that proper housing is the first priority of the Labour Government. The figures show that the erection of new houses over the past year has dropped back to square one, to the figure at which it stood when the Government took over. By the end of 1970 the average over the years of this Government's period of office will be no more than the amount of new houses built in the year when they took over.
It is extraordinary to claim that only a Labour Government gives priority to housing. They have dropped that priority entirely over the past year. The hon. Member shed crocodile tears about the absence of bathrooms in some of the houses in his constituency, but I would have thought that the blame fell more on Labour control of London over the past 30 years than on Conservative control over the past three years. The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss motorways. Perhaps he believes that there should be no urban road development for through traffic but would leave it all to continue causing misery in local roads. Perhaps this is what he meant by preservation of the environment.
We can always find complaints about any proposed road development. It will always hit some householder badly. The G.L.C. has been bold enough to bring forward a plan for public consideration and to submit it to an independent public inquiry, which will start shortly. The public will then be able to express a full opinion of the details of the plan. I wondered whether the Government support this electioneering exercise on a Private Member's Bill. If a report in today's evening newspapers concerning the Government's attitude towards London government is true, I suppose that they do support this attitude.
Perhaps something should have been included in the Bill to protect the Greater London Council from this Government disregarding their obligations under the London Government Act, 1963, which
712
requires the Minister to give effect to agreements between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs for transfer of housing estates to the boroughs. Agreement has been reached and the Minister is obliged to make an Order giving effect to that agreement. He has made that Order, and now he it is reported that he will advise his supporters to vote against his own Order. Is this a repetition of the parliamentary boundaries trick? Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying all evening that something else should be in the Bill, and I am pointing out that something should have been in the Bill to protect the Greater London Council against this sort of trick by the Government.
Mr. Roebuck: Surely it is a matter for Parliament to decide and not the Government. The hon. Gentleman surely is not suggesting that there could be anything put into the Bill which would in any way diminish the sovereignty of Parliament?
Mr. Page: I am suggesting that something should be put into the Bill to oblige the Government to carry out the requirements of the London Government Act, 1963. I am asking if it is the intention of the Government to make Orders and then to tell their supporters to vote against those Orders, as is reported in the Press tonight. If that is so, it is a disgraceful trick to play on Parliament, the G.L.C., the boroughs and the electors. Perhaps we shall have a denial of that tonight. Here is a local authority being kicked in the teeth for coming to Parliament with a Bill to carry out undertakings which it has given to Parliament in agreement with third parties and other local authorities. The Greater London Council on the occasion of the previous Bill gave an undertaking that it would bring in a Bill to provide a code concerning statutory undertakers' apparatus in walkways. In all good faith it has entered into agreements, and it has brought the Bill before the House for confirmation of those agreements.
The contents of the Bill can do nothing but benefit the London boroughs, the superannuitants, the ratepayers and the traffic and help in the prevention of pollution. I do not agree with all the details of every Clause and I hope that there will be considerable alterations in Committee.

713
Clause 4, which deals with Wandsworth Common, should contain a right of preemption. If owners have been dispossessed from these houses for a certain purpose and the purpose is then changed, those owners should have the right to have their houses back again without loss.
I do not think the House should approve Clause 5, the family settlement clause, which gives blanket approval to every variation. I had great difficulty in finding the purpose of that Clause until it was carefully explained to me.
In Clause 10, dealing with the walkways code, it is wrong to give statutory undertakers the right to place equipment on the walkways. This was decided against the undertakers in the Acts dealing with the City of London, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Liverpool. This is a departure from precedent which I hope will be carefully considered in Committee. These matters can be thrashed out in Committee, and when on Report the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, hon. Members can decide whether or not they like the result. I hope that at this stage the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. Moyle: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has sat down. There are many hon. Members still to speak.
9.6 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Had the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) not sought to comment on certain general matters, but confined himself to the Bill before the House, I might not have been tempted to make any observations on them. But the hon. Gentleman has made a number of points on housing which must be corrected. Not for the first time, no doubt unintentionally, he has misled the House.
Although shortly I shall come to deal with provisions of the Bill and express the Government's view upon it—and I say straightaway that I hope that it will be given a Second Reading—I make it clear that the hon. Gentleman went very wide of the facts in criticising the Government for a shortfall in the housing programme and commending the Greater London Council for increasing it. I do
714
not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows the true position, but when the current housing programme for 1965–70 was agreed between the G.L.C. and the Ministry it was the intention to build up to a rate of 9,000 tenders a year, independently of the boroughs, by this coming financial or municipal year.
From 1965 until 1967, there was a rise in the number of dwellings put into tender from about 5,500 to about 7,500. In 1968, the first year following the change of political control at County Hall, instead of that figure increasing it dropped to 5,300 dwellings, which meant a shortfall of 2,300 tenders on the proposed agreed programme for the year, In 1969, when it was intended that 8,500 dwellings should be put into tender by the Greater London Council, about 7,000 dwellings went into tender. It has recently been announced that instead of a consistent 9,000 dwelling going into tender per year, as was the original programme, which we would have seen achieved from the end of 1970 onwards, the programme is being cut back to 7,000 dwellings a year.
I regret to say that there is far too much indication in terms of slum clearance returns coming into the Ministry that, on the basis of past experience, that cut-back to 7,000 dwellings going to tender will not be achieved unless there is a radical change in policy, conduct and organisation in County Hall. There are parts of London where the rate of slum clearance over the past two years has shown a shortfall of nearly 50 per cent, on the original programme agreed by the G.L.C. That is causing considerable concern not only to my Ministry, but to some of the officers serving the borough councils in question.
Mr. R. W. Brown: My hon. Friend will recall that I am in correspondence with him on this matter. It is not only the boroughs and their officers who are concerned, but the occupiers of the dwellings who are forced by the vacillations of the G.L.C. to remain in these properties far longer than they should.
Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend has been extremely diligent in pursuing the question of the slow-down in slum clearance on a number of sites in his constituency. Of course, it is causing great concern first and foremost to those who

715
live in the dwellings. It is causing no less concern to the Department, since we are seeing not an increase, nor a levelling off, but a fall-back.
Perhaps I might relate the position to the criticism of the Government's programme in national terms. There has been a shortfall of 40,000 dwellings in the past year. In connection with that figure, it is relevant to point out that the kind of construction tender programmes that we would wish to see and for which resources will be made available, as we have made clear to all the London boroughs and the G.L.C., should be running at something between 30,000 and 40,000 tendered dwellings a year.
In fact, it had risen to 27,000, but it is now falling back because, for a variety of reasons, the borough councils and the Greater London Council have lacked the political will to maintain the level of tendering which they inherited when they took over control two or three years ago and, to make matters worse, have been cutting back drastically. There are boroughs in London which have reflected the same experience as that which I am reporting to the House as being our experience with the Greater London Council.
I am speaking in measured tones. It would be easy to be polemical about it. Since the subject has been pursued by the hon. Member for Crosby, I felt it necessary to put the facts on record. This is not a matter to be treated lightly. A very serious situation faces London when there is a failure to maintain an expanding public sector in the house-building programme. There are a few marked exceptions on both sides of the political spectrum, but I hope that all the authorities concerned, including the Greater London Council, will reconsider the position.
Mr. Graham Page: What about the Government?
Mr. Freeson: We will make the resources available and bring as much influence as we can to bear on local authorities to keep up their programmes and, where possible, to increase them.
Mr. Moyle: In confirmation of what my hon. Friend has said, is he aware that the Conservative-controlled Borough of Lewisham has not initiated a single
716
new housing project since the change-over from Labour to Conservative control?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed great latitude in this debate. Hon. Members on both sides have touched upon a wide variety of matters. The boroughs are not one of the matters concerned in the Bill, and the question of detail is one of which I must take some account.
Mr. Freeson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take note of what you have said. I was about to say that I take note of my hon. Friend's intervention as well. However, it is not a matter to be pursued tonight. If he wishes to make representations, he is free to make them to his own authority or to the Ministry, assuming that he considers it to be a matter of public and national policy. We will no doubt desire to probe such allegations to see whether there is any help that we can give to "up" the housing programme in question.
I now turn to the Bill. I have indicated that the Government hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. The provisions of the Bill are of no great significance to the Government, except those relating to walkways, but I do not intend to discuss this matter in detail.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) referred petitions which are being put in against certain aspects of these provisions which will have to be dealt with in Committee, if the Bill gets a Second Reading.
Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the petitions. Perhaps I may correct some information that I gave to the House earlier. I am told that there are now six petitions against this part of the Bill, not three as I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Freeson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.
It is of some significance that the petitions come, as it were, from each side of the spectrum: from those representing the statutory undertakings—the public services, electricity, water, etc.—and from those representing property owners, shop developers and the like. I understand that both types of petition are in somewhat contrary terms. This may indicate that there has been a broadly sensible middle course pursued by the G.L.C.

717
My main point is that the provisions relating to walkways have been introduced into the Bill after the fullest consultation with my Department and with other interested bodies. Indeed, they have been introduced on an undertaking given to the Government last year, and they relate to better planning control and design of pedestrian and traffic separation schemes. We would wish any detailed matters to be pursued in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House.
Whatever anxieties and criticisms hon. Members have about other aspects of the Greater London Council's policy and administration in the various spheres which have been touched on—housing, parks administration, public welfare, and the like—they are not grounds for rejecting the Bill, understandable as those anxieties and criticisms may be. I am not objecting to the rights and the opportunity which hon. Members rightly take on Second Reading of a Bill like this to go somewhat more widely into matters of policy relating to the local authority concerned. I am merely urging that they should not be taken too far. We should not lose the opportunity for improving certain aspects of legislation, planning and development control which the Government have sought to have introduced into the Bill in discussion with the G.L.C.
Having made those remarks, somewhat in sympathy with some of the general critcisms which have been made, I hope that hon. Members will heed my plea.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary give a firm lead to the House saying that in his view and that of the Government and his Department, the Bill should be given a Second Reading tonight. The reasons were so clearly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornesy (Mr. Rossi), in a most admirable speech, that I would have been very surprised if the Parliamentary Secretary had said anything else. It is clear that if this Bill were to be lost there would be lost with it quite important matters of considerable significance to large sections of the community.
There are pensioners who stand to gain under Clauses 6 and 7, there are very important planning regulations and the complicated machinery in respect of
718
wallways. It is important that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and allowed to go into Committee. The House knows the procedure—that any interests affected have the opportunity to appear before the Committee, sitting as a quasi-judicial body, and to put their points of view, to have them argued and considered at length and at leisure.
I echo the Parliamentary Secretary's appeal that in due course this Bill should be permitted a Second Reading and should go through the normal procedure of this House as innumerable Bills promoted almost annually by this authority have done in the past. I would be the last to make any complaint that during the course of its passage a certain amount of political discussion should take place.
It is within the recollection of the House that I have not always abstained completely from that agreeable pastime and I should plainly be a hypocrite if I suggested that, now the Conservative Party is installed at County Hall, there was anything wrong in hon. Members opposite taking advantage of the procedural opportunities which some of us in different circumstances were not slow to exploit in the past.
I want to follow up what the Parliamentary Secretary said outwith the immediate structure of the Bill, but within the rules of order as laid down earlier. The Parliamentary Secretary read the G.L.C. a lecture upon what he regarded as its inadequate housing performance. I am bound to say that it came singularly ill from a representative of a Government, indeed a Department, which only the other day had to admit the lamentable failure of their own housing programme. It was Satan rebuking Sin, with all the technical advantages that Satan has on that topic.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Satan cannot come into our discussions on the Bill.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must apologise for introducing Satan. Somehow to see a representative of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government present inescapably reminds me of Satan. I think that that representative desires to take wing.
Mr. Freeson: If the right hon. Gentle-wishes to use words such as "Satan" in the course of his remarks, I hope that

719
he will not keep wagging his finger in my direction. I take the point that he has raised. He will appreciate that when we speak of a shortfall on an original target level of house building which the Government have achieved, that cannot be treated as something separate from what the G.L.C. or any housing authority or developer has undertaken. If there has been a shortfall of many thousands of dwellings going into tender in London last year, and it is threatened again this coming year, that shortfall shows itself as part of the national shortfall and there is a responsibility on the G.L.C. and many of the borough authorities to build more. The shortfall will be less if they build more, as we want them to do.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept the hon. Gentleman's profound statement that if more houses were built the shortfall would be less. That hardly requires argument. The hon. Gentleman is on a serious point. The equally serious point I would put to him is that the shortfall being national to the extent of a reduction of 45,000 on the previous year, it would surely occur to him that the fault must also be national rather than local in origin. The hon. Gentleman has helped me in the argument to which I was coming. The difficulties which the G.L.C., like all local authorities, and all private builders, has been encountering, difficulties which are reflected in the tragic falling-off in new house building, which the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend had to admit the other day, stem from the same series of causes, which are causes within the control of the Government of the day. The credit squeeze—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Now the right hon. Gentleman must come back to the Bill.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With respect, Mr. Speaker, other speakers in this debate were permitted by Mr. Deputy Speaker to refer to problems of national housing, and in response to a point of order which I specifically submitted to Mr. Deputy Speaker about one and three-quarter hours ago I was informed that as hon. Gentlemen opposite had been permitted to refer favourably to national policies in housing, those who spoke from this side of the House would be permitted to refer to them unfavourably.
720
That is my clear recollection, and it was in that belief that I was addressing myself to the matter. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think that you returned to the Chair in time to hear a very strong argument in favour of the Government from the Parliamentary Secretary. With respect, I should have thought that in those circumstances a brief reference to this matter would not incur your disapproval.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Member has made a brief reference to this matter. I think he is arguing that he protested about an hon. Member on the other side of the House being out of order, and he now wants to be similarly out of order himself.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if I left you with that impression, it is my fault. My argument was the exact converse, that an hon. Gentleman opposite having been permitted to refer to this topic, I inquired whether others on this side would later be allowed to refer to it in a contrary sense, and I was told that that would be possible.
Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Gentleman on the other side was out of order, the right hon. Member is equally right to be out of order to the same extent, and he has now made the brief reference that he wanted to make.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary, on his own reasoning, accepts that it does not lie in his mouth, or in that of a representative of the central Government, to criticise this or any local authority for any shortfall in its housing programme, because, if that has happened, it is the direct result of his actions.
There is only one other point which I desire to take up, and that springs from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). My hon. Friend inquired of the Parliamentary Secretary what his right hon. Friend's attitude was to the transfer of some of the G.L.C. housing estates to the boroughs, to which reference is made in this evening's Press. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not reply at once. About 50,000 houses are involved. As I understand it, the Order has been signed in accordance with the provisions of the London Government Act, 1963, and all

721
the preparations, lengthy and expensive, have been made by the G.L.C. for the making of this transfer.
The Leader of the G.L.C. has been informed by the hon. Gentleman's Department that
"the Minister would like him to know that in making the Order he has complied with the statutory requirements. The Order is, however, liable to be debated in Parliament, and the Minister wishes to reserve his attitude for the present."
That has a familiar ring for some of us. But I feel, as my hon. Friend said, that if the G.L.C. had suspected that the Minister had any such intention it would be a legitimate criticism of the Bill that a provision had not been included to deal with that in the terms of the Bill. But the G.L.C.—and this may be a criticism of it—trusted the Minister. This may well be a mistake. It may well be a grave blemish on the Bill that it was not made Minister-proof. But the hon. Gentleman cannot just shrug this off. He cannot deliberately leave 50,000 families uncertain as to their future. He must really tell us whether it is his right hon. Friend's intention to back the order he has made or to run away from it.
Mr. Freeson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. The Minister has indicated that he has reserved his position and it is not for me to go in conflict with that. The matter will be before the House very shortly. All I would say at this stage, in the light of what has been said in the debate on this Bill, is that the right hon. Gentleman should, like myself, be more concerned with the many thousands of families who are not going to get any kind of municipal dwellings as a result of the cut-back by about 12,000 dwellings currently on the G.L.C. housing programme.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is not good enough and the hon. Gentleman knows it. Surely, he must tell us whether his right hon. Friend proposes to recommend his hon. Friends to support this order, or whether he does not, and is going to run away from it.
9.38 p.m.
Mr. R. W. Brown: I would like to take up the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and to tell
722
him that without a shadow of doubt I would oppose the Order for the transfer of houses from the G.L.C. to the boroughs through and through as I have already opposed what he chooses to describe as an exercise by the G.L.C. in bringing forward these plans.
It was the most prising job trying to get the G.L.C. to "come clean" on what they were proposing to do. On the London Boroughs Association we had to fight month after month and we still never got the answers either on transfer of housing or transfer of parks and open spaces. It is the biggest cheat operation ever mounded by the Tory Party at County Hall.
Let the right hon. Gentleman not talk about 50,000 families left in a dilemma, for that is grossly unfair. The Greater London Council and Councillor Plummer were warned time and again that they would have to "come clean" with the information. Therefore, it is quite wrong to make the suggestion that there was any impression that what Councillor Plummer was proposing to do was popular.
Mr. Graham Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Ministry official has sat in on all these deliberations and has said nothing about the Minister reserving his rights until the Minister makes an Order? Is not that a trick on the G.L.C.?
Mr. Brown: I do not know the background against which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) makes that observation. I did not sit on the working party either, but I knew what was going on and the London boroughs with whom the G.L.C. were allegedly consulting knew. There were officers sitting on the working party, and two representatives from the Ministry sitting in as observers, holding a watching brief on behalf of the Minister. As I understood, when the proposals were brought forward all that they had in mind was a procedural point, something that could be done if, in the interests of Londoners, what mechanically could happen if the Minister desired this to happen when submissions were made.
I have grave doubts about the obligation on the Minister. I have studied the Act of 1963, as I studied it at the time, and subsection (3).
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is trying to get on the wavelength of this debate. I hope that we can link what we are talking about with the Bill.
Mr. Brown: I was carried away by the argument when it was alleged that the transfer of housing was being done in a way that a lot of people really want. That is not true and I wanted to indicate my position very clearly. I saw the Press this evening and thought that the words, "Life in London gets worse", were a preamble to this document. It was a grave commentary on Conservative administration in County Hall.
Let me make my position clear. I am a member of the London Boroughs Association. I was, therefore, one of those concerned in asking the G.L.C. to bring forward Clause 14. I therefore wish to see that provision in the Bill. However, I have in mind Julius Caesar and I wish to ensure that no evils live on after me.
I say this because an argument has arisen over Clause 14 in that a decision contrary to anything that we have known in local government in London has been taken. I refer to there having to be a majority of greater than two-thirds of council members. The Conservative majority in the L.B.A. insisted that the majority should be three-quarters. On reflection, it must be agreed that the only reason why that decision was taken was because it was hoped that a stop could be put on any proposals that might come forward from the Inner London boroughs.
In other words, there is a delaying factor in the sense that it will be more difficult for us to get a majority of three-quarters for a proposal than it has been in the past for us to obtain a majority of two-thirds. Is it really thought that the outer London areas are indifferent to what the Inner London ones have in mind?
I regret that the Gentleman who pushed this majority decision through on behalf of the Conservative Party has removed himself from the scene. The trouble is that while his evil remains, the G.L.C. will have this delaying factor when considering proposals brought forward by the London Boroughs Association. Now that that gentleman has departed, I hope that we will soon return to the two-thirds
724
majority principle, which we have always known in London.
Clause 5 worries me, particularly in view of the "architectural merit" label which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) applied to it. It worries me because of cases that have arisen in my constituency. What will happen when the G.L.C. suddenly decides to change its mind over a plan? For example, one area in my constituency was to be cleared because I can only describe it as a slum. Suddenly, the G.L.C. decided that the dreadful properties involved, in which many of my people are living, were excellent examples of Victorian structure.
That decision caused alarm and despondency, not only to the local authority but to each one of the people living in those properties. I hope that somebody with expertise in this matter will make a close study of what the G.L.C. is proposing in this provision, for we do not want it to be used to retain dreadful properties which should be pulled down.
I understood the hon. Member for Hornsey to say that Clause 8 was based on the Liverpool Corporation Act. That worries me, also. After all, it was alleged in connection with the 1961 Act that the citizen had a right to proceed against a local authority if there was any damage or danger due to negligence in the construction of the footway. However, in the case of Meggs v. Liverpool Corporation in 1968 an extraordinary judgment was given, and in my submission that virtually ruled out the possibility of the individual being in a position to proceed against an authority.
I say that I am worried about Clause 8 because, whatever Liverpool Corporation may have done, this proposal in the Bill may make it impossible for people to claim damages from a local authority in view of the 1968 judgment to which I referred. I am, of course, referring to walkways, and the 1968 judgment was to the effect that although paving stones may be 1¾ in. to 2 in. proud, that was not unreasonable and should not cause people to fall over.
The problem in my constituency is that people are not in an earnings scale which enables them to employ lawyers to take up their grievances. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite

725
are noisy when I say that. If they have legal aid in mind, then my experience is—I have spoken with the Attorney-General about this—that lawyers tend to say that the case of Meggs v. Liverpool Corporation rules out any possibility of a case being won unless paving stones are more than 2½ in. proud. I am at present pursuing two cases of this kind in my constituency, but unfortunately, because lawyers take this view, my constituents do not have the financial means to press on and litigate.
Therefore, I want to be sure that in the Bill we do not perpetuate that situation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will satisfy me that he is not intending to do something which, in the long run, will be to the detriment of the citizens.
I read Part IV of the Bill, on walkways, with great interest and related it to my own constituency.
Mr. Roebuck: What do walkways mean?
Mr. Brown: I will describe to my hon. Friend what it means and I shall take my constituency as an example.
It means that the G.L.C. will give instructions to the transport authority that it is to be financially viable and must put £2m. to reserve each year for five years. Then the G.L.C. says "How can we make life extremely difficult for the people living in Finsbury?" The G.L.C. says that one of the things that can be done, because Finsbury is a built-up area, is to close the Underground station on Sundays. Next, it says, "That is not enough, because the residents are still getting about, so let us close the Underground on a Saturday as well."
At this stage, the G.L.C. is getting nearer the point of making life difficult for the people of Finsbury because the Barbican station is then closed on a Saturday and Sunday. But is is discovered that people are using buses, so it is said, "Stop the buses running after eight o'clock on a Saturday and remove them completely on a Sunday". The residents now have to walk all the way from Finsbury to the Angel, because that is the only way they can get there. That is a description of a walkway.
I do not know why it took Part IV to describe this. If one wants to make
726
life a little more difficult, one introduces a parking meter scheme precisely designed to ensure that the resident cannot park and the public commuters can. So a scheme is designed for an area with three 24-hour firms working on shift work. One then provides 10-hour meters and 2-hour meters. I explained to the G.L.C. in simple terms that that would not work and went through the whole story, but it insisted on implementing the scheme.
As I forecast, the employee of the three 24-hour shift working firms who are commuters must come in by car. The position is that the first shift goes onto the 10-hour meters and when the second shift comes along it takes the meters over and the same thing happens when the third shift comes along. Consequently, residents in my constituency are unable to park their cars anywhere except on the 2-hour meters.
As we all know, the law says that one must start buying meter time from 8.30 a.m. Many of my residents are also shift workers. They arrive home at 6 a.m. and then have to play the pyjama game and get up again at 8.30 a.m. to take their cars off the 2-hour meters and park them elsewhere. That makes it extremely difficult. In my constituency, the residents have to suffer this walkway game because as they cannot park their cars they cannot keep them and so get rid of them. They then find that they have no Underground and that the bus services are withdrawn, but, of course, there is a walkway for everybody.
This is what the G.L.C. desires to call "work on behalf of the people of London". It is understandable that my name should be attached to several of the Amendments, because I feel very sad that the G.L.C. has failed in every way, particularly over the question of walkways, to make any provision for the needs of London.
The G.L.C. has failed in its transport policy as a whole. I regret that we still see no provision in the Bill for concessionary fares. The London Transport Act, 1969, gave London a municipal transport service and in the Bill the G.L.C. could have introduced concessionary fares for the aged and the handicapped, who enjoy this privilege in almost every other city in the country.
Mr. Roebuck: Including Liverpool.
Mr. Brown: Including Liverpool, as my hon. Friend says.
But County Hall and the majority of the administrations in the borough town halls in London have taken the deplorable decision to make it impossible for the old and the handicapped to travel on our municipal transport. The transfer of London Transport to the G.L.C. could have been done by any Government, but it was left to the present Government to give London its own municipal transport. It is only regrettable that it should have been done at a time when there is a Conservative majority at County Hall.
I must be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak. There is so much that I would like to say, however. I would like to have entered into discussion about the transfer of parks and open spaces. There is a long story to be told about that. I look forward to the appropriate Order on that matter coming up in the House, because I shall have something to say about the G.L.C.'s behaviour.
Why is there no provision in the Bill for the protection of trees and for the provision of a tree bank? Nothing is being done to make London streets more attractive and look as if they have some amenity. We just have these walkways with no trees or hedges or anything of amenity value. It is disgraceful that the G.L.C. is doing nothing in the Bill to help beautify London.
One of the things which most certainly should have been in the Bill was a decision to support a Royal Air Force Museum. It is scandalous and a commentary on our time that the Conservative-ruled County Hall and the majority of the Conservative-ruled town halls in London refused to find enough money to perpetuate the honour of the Royal Air Force at Hendon. It could have been done in the Bill. They could have shown at least some understanding and respect for all that the Royal Air Force has done. They could have perpetuated that honour in London. But such is their paucity of ideas that they could not find it in themselves to do it.
While I am not of a mind to oppose the Bill, I believe that it is poor and weak. I do not believe that it has one jot of interest to the G.L.C. I believe that it was the boroughs which asked the
728
G.L.C. to put it through for them. It is a sad commentary that the G.L.C. had not the courage to do anything else.
9.50 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Last year when a Private Bill concerning one of the great councils in the North came before this House for Second Reading, I made it the opportunity to comment adversely on Clauses regarding superannuation. Superannuation in local government is a subject on its own. The provisions of the 1937 Act make it possible for local authorities to do extremely well by their employees, particularly when they leave the service in the middle of their careers. Transferability of pension rights is one of my particular interests. Whenever, therefore, an opportunity presents itself such as is presented tonight to examine what a local authority is doing about superannuation, I think it right to seize the opportunity.
Last year I seized it and, I am sure, made myself a very unpopular figure for a time with one of the local authorities in the North. I did not, however, pursue my vendetta to the extent of preventing the progress of that Bill. I look for further opportunities when there are paternalistic but obsolete trends to pass similar strictures on local authorities in future. This is a very different matter we are considering tonight. It is only appropriate that comment should be made on the attitude of Greater London Council to the question of superannuation.
I do not think enough praise has been voiced in this House of the superannuation provisions of the 1968 London (General Powers) Act which, as local authorities go, are exceptionally progressive and even experimental in the best possible sense. Two very minor amendments are required by Greater London Council and I strongly commend the Bill to the House if only because of the small, but not insignificant, amendments to the superannuation provisions which the council desires to make. One is to confer better benefits in a case where mercy is particularly desirable, that is to say, in cases where the earner of pension rights has died within a year of completing his service. The other is to give wider transferability when people in the service of the authority change the precise nature of their employment.

729
As the hour is late, I do not think it behoves me to speak at much greater length on this subject, and it is a matter which we shall be discussing tomorrow, but I did not wish to allow the opportunity to go by without saying that these provisions are entirely in tune with the forward-looking nature of Greater London Council. I strongly commend the Bill to the House for that reason.
9.53 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) on the brilliant speech he made covering all aspects of the Bill. The most important point he made was that tonight those who are speaking in opposition to it are not doing so on matters contained in the Bill, but on the dismal failure of Greater London Council to put into their Bill this year many matters which we consider highly desirable from the point of view of good government and the wellbeing of the citizens of London.
I join with my hon. Friends in saying that it is not our intention to divide on the principle of the Second Reading of the Bill, but we believe that it needs to be adequately debated. It is with that intention that we have been speaking tonight.
The first point I make is in relation to Clause 12, concerning sludge mains. As the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) pointed out, the Greater London Council is seeking powers to enable trade effluent to be discharged into sludge mains under the control of the council. If those mains were to take off pressure from the Thamesmead sewerage works in my constituency, I would, of course, join with him in welcoming the possibility of trade effluent entering straight into a sludge main.
But I must ask the hon. Member: where are the sludge mains in London? There certainly is none connecting Thamesmead sewerage works to the coast. The great fear in my constituency is that Greater London Council does not intend to put in sludge mains from Thamesmead to the coast to take sludge away, but to put in mains to bring sludge from other areas to Thamesmead, thus increasing the problems for my constituency.
Mr. Rossi Mr. Rossi indicated dissent.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he likes to give me an assurance that the first sludge main to be constructed by his council will take the sludge away from the Thamesmead sewerage works to the coast, I should be delighted to give way to him. He sits silent.
Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have already dealt with this point.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman has given no assurance that the first sludge main installed by the Greater London Council will take the filth away from Thamesmead, the housing estate his council is now building. Many thousands of people in the Thamesmead area are affected by the foul stench from the sewerage works. There has been very little action, although there have been plenty of promises of the same sort as we heard tonight from the hon. Member for Hornchurch—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams); I meant to refer to the hon. Member for Hornsey. I would not like to insult my hon. Friend.
My constituents are appalled by the Greater London Council's complacency.
Mr. R. W. Brown: Would my hon. Friend confirm that it is proposed to bring in the sludge main in the area being retained by the G.L.C. for council development, whereas on the other side of the development it is selling land to private enterprise?
Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend can rest assured that it is unlikely that the G.L.C. will sell any land at Thamesmead for private development adjacent to the sewage works. It is reserving that portion for council tenants. That is part of its philosophy.
Mr. Howie: Will the sludge pipe about which my hon. Friend talks so delicately come into the river above or below the optimum site of the flood barrier across the Thames in Long Reach?
Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that when, at a distant date, the G.L.C. starts to redeem some of its promises in this matter it will go right down to the coast and discharge out to sea, thus relieving not only my constituents but the whole of London.

731
I want to refer to the complacency of the G.L.C. and of Councillor Plummer in particular. In 1968, I wrote to him about the loss of amenity in my area caused by the sewage smell, and I had the pleasure of receiving a letter from him. He told me:
"You refer to the complete elimination of all odour from the sewage works, and I must repeat that even with all modern techniques such a situation cannot be guaranteed. This is not to say that any smell arising need be unacceptable. Indeed the smell one normally associates with a river can be and often is regarded as an asset. The analogy is apt in that such smells have great similarity to the healthy sewage treatment plant."
I do not know where Councillor Plummer lives, but I know that he does not live near the sewerage works, though my constituents do. Therefore, I make

Division No. 69.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Russell, Sir Ronald

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

Iremonger, T. L.

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Scott, Nicholas

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Lane, David

Scott-Hopkins, James

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

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

Sharples, Richard

Biffen, John

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

Black, Sir Cyril

Longden, Gilbert

Silvester, Frederick

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

MacArthur, Ian

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

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Maddan, Martin

Speed, Keith

Chichester-Clark, R

Maginnis, John E.

Stodart, Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Mawby, Ray

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Crowder, F. P.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Currie, G. B. H.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Dance, James

Monro, Hector

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

Doughty, Charles

More, Jasper

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Tilney, John

Eyre, Reginald

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Farr, John

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Fisher, Nigel

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Foster, Sir John

Neave, Airey

Ward, Christopher (swindon)

Goodhart, Philip

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Ward, Dame Irene

Goodhew, Victor

Nott, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Gower, Raymond

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Grant, Anthony

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Gurden, Harold

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Peel, John

Worsley, Marcus

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vers

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hawkins, Paul

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Royle, Anthony

Mr. Hugh Rossi.

NOES

Nil

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Roy Roebuck and

Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the Affir/native because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
no apology for using every opportunity that presents itself to me in Parliament to press and press the G.L.C., as I shall continue to do so long as I represent the constituency, to eliminate the foul stench that arises from its sewerage works at Thamesmead and is smelt all over a wide area of my constituency.
The situation is far more serious than that, because the G.L.C. is developing at Thamesmead new homes for 60,000 people. Those new homes are within a few hundred yards of the sewerage works, and the tenants moving in now—
Mr. Berry Mr. Berry rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, that the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 0.

TENEMENT BUILDINGS, GLASGOW
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Tom McMillan: I welcome the opportunity of airing in the House the plight in which a large number of my constituents find themselves today. They are in fear and danger of their lives.
On 1st February a support wall and chimney head of a tenement building in my constituency crashed through the houses at 44 to 50, Fisher Street, Glasgow, and the lives of 43 people were put in grave peril. The dangerous condition of this building had been reported by me to the city engineer on 23rd January. I later received from him a letter dated 27th January, which I will read:
"Property, 44/50 Fisher Street: I am in receipt of your inquiry of the 23rd instant, and have to advise you that my district inspector has arranged with the factor for the property, Messrs. Murray & Muir Ltd., 135 St. Vincent Street to have these cracks infilled with cement and plaster so that any further movement in this bed recess wall will be observed without further delay."
That is the situation that existed up to 1st February. But before the examination and observation could be made the tragedy occurred.
The frightening thing is the procedure which follows when somebody reports that a building is dangerous. The present procedure is that the factor, the landlord or agent is informed and then there is a waiting period, which might run into months. During this time a very dangerous situation can develop where lives are put at risk.
My constituents are forced to continue to live in these dreadful buildings during this period of terror. I have had occasion in my area as its Member of Parliament and a former city councillor, to report a large number of buildings as dangerous. I should like to give the House some examples of my experiences.
There was a case where a city engineer's representative and I went to examine a toilet stock, a 60 to 70 foot high block of toilets added to a building, which I considered to be dangerous. The
734
engineer's opinion was the same as mine but did not carry the same urgency. A few days later, about 3 o'clock in the morning, the stock collapsed and only by the grace of God no one was killed. If the collapse had taken place at any other time of day there would have been people using the toilets who possibly would have been killed, and children might have been playing in the back courtyard into which the stock collapsed.
Another example occurred in the vicinity of the near-tragedy on 1st February. In this case the city engineer's representative and I both agreed that the building was dangerous. The factor was informed and he agreed to spend about £1,500 to make the building safe. Weeks passed before, under pressure from the occupants, a safety barrier was placed around the defective wall. This barrier, however, quickly became ineffective because of vandalism and children's activities, and indeed the wall collapsed before any remedial work was done.
I will give another example of what is happening at this moment. In a large tenement building there is a bulging wall which the factor had been asked to make safe. This man is one of the best factors in Glasgow, but nevertheless months have passed and, so far as I know, nothing has been done. One of my constituents has complained to me that she lives in the top flat of this tenement which is about 70 ft. high and she finds that her doors jam and that cracks have appeared in her ceiling. She has become a very frightened woman.
Last Sunday I visited the house almost next door to the collapse in Fisher Street. The movement in the building was such that the amount of wood cut from the bottom of doors to make them close left a two-inch gap. In fact, somebody who visited the property told me it was like walking on a listing ship. From top to bottom of the building a huge crack has appeared, which my constituents point out to me every time I visit the building. They have observed that it is getting bigger.
My hon. Friend will remember the debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 1969. He will recall that I described an area of 600 to 700 houses and asked if they could be included as a treatment area. His answer was "Yes". The area

735
I described is the one I am now talking about, and this has led to the present Adjournment debate.
I knew then that over 80 per cent. of the houses in this area did not meet the standards set out in the Bill. I had hoped that, because of continuous representations made by my colleagues on the council and by the ward secretary, this would be one of the first to be considered as a house treatment area. It would now appear that this is not to be so. One consolation, if it be a consolation, is that there is more activity in this area than ever before.
I am sorry that disaster has caused this activity. The problem of procedure is still with us. The chimney heads being taken down are from property owned by Glasgow Corporation. With the private property the waiting game continues. In this area when the wind blows at night—and this happens only too frequently in winter—the lights go on all over the area. What is happening is that the women are getting up, putting on the lights, moving the beds away from the area where the chimney head is, sitting up all night, ready to help if a serious situation occurs. This is going on all the time in these houses. It is very difficult for people who have never lived under such circumstances to understand the terror in which these unfortunate people live.
One day in 1953, following a storm, I came home from work to find that my whole family and many others had escaped annihilation by a few yards when a chimney head crashed to the ground, hitting every floor of the tenement building next to my own home. The cause of this appalling situation is clear—it is the neglect of the landlord over many years. There are no gutters throughout the area, the rain washes down the face of the building, undermining the whole structure. Pointing has not been done in the last 30 years.
The answer is clear—build more houses in Glasgow. The statement made recently by the administration spokesman in Glasgow, that there would only be 3,300 starts on new houses this year is, to my mind, a near criminal announcement. I hope that the citizens of Glasgow will react strongly to those who count only the cost and who could well bring about a situation where they will be
736
counting lives. I have tried to bring out some of the fears of myself and my constituents. One of the problems which will remain for some time unless action is taken is that in the tenement buildings in this area and many others when the bottom houses become empty the steel shutters are put on the doors and windows. During the thaw water pounds through the house at the bottom. For months water is pouring in, undermining these buildings. The factor has to be got, we have to wait his time to get in and inspect the building. A social worker who helped to take families from the collapsed building to the institute at Forest Hall—there is no other place for these people, they have to be separated in wards—said that dangerous buildings were causing trouble at least once a week.
When Shelter came to Glasgow, it chose this area for its national report. Photographs of the buildings, and statements made by the people, I am talking about were in this national report. I ask the Government to try to find ways and means of helping Glasgow with this dreadful housing problem.
10.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. Dickson Mabon): The House is much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Tom McMillan) for the concise way in which he has stated his case, particularly in view of the urgency and genuine human concern surrounding this subject. We all agree that it is intolerable for people to have to live in houses that are unfit for human habitation. It is even more intolerable that they should have to live in buildings which are positively dangerous.
Let me deal with the question of dangerous buildings first. The power to deal with these rests with Glasgow Corporation, which can order the owners to take down or secure dangerous buildings or buildings likely to become dangerous. It can acquire the buildings compulsorily, take the necessary action and deduct the expenses from the compensation payable. My right hon. Friend has confirmed 60 compulsory purchase orders for that purpose in the last three years and 13 more are being considered.
Through the Master of Works emergency action can be taken to evacuate

737
dangerous buildings and prevent access to them. All this is done under the corporation's local Acts of 1937 and 1965. Sections 99 and 100 of the Glasgow Streets, Sewers and Buildings Consolidation Act, 1937, give the Dean of Guild Court powers to require owners to take down or secure dangerous buildings or buildings which are likely to become dangerous. Through the Master of Works steps can be taken in an emergency to evacuate and shore up such properties to prevent access to them. In many cases, however, the corporation has no alternative but to meet the cost of demolition and and so on itself.
Section 5 of the Glasgow Corporation (No. 2) Order Confirmation Act, 1965, empowers the corporation to acquire such properties compulsorily and, as I said earlier, to deduct its expenses from the compensation payable.
Each building inspector keeps buildings in his area under surveillance for signs of their becoming dangerous—for example, bulging in walls and loosening of mortar in joints round chimney heads. A particularly close watch is kept on the central area of the city.
Reports are prepared by the Master of Works who, in an emergency, has power to evacuate the building and exclude access to it. In most cases reports are submitted to the Dean of Guild Court who appoint a Reporter, an "independent man of skill", to advise the court on whether the building should be demolished. The owner is cited to appear at the court in due course at which the Reporter's recommendations are considered. In 1969 the Dean of Guild Court dealt with some 80 cases involving possibly five to 10 individual houses in each instance. Many involved properties which the corporation, as housing authority, was in the process of clearing.
I now turn to 45/50 Fisher Street, Dennistoun. The chimney head of this tenement property collapsed on 1st February creating extensive damage to the dwelling houses concerned. The property had already been earmarked by the housing authority for clearance. Nine families—33 people—were evacuated by the corporation. Four of the families had been previously rehoused by the corporation and had returned of their
738
own volition. The property was inspected just prior to the collapse, but a thorough inspection was not possible as the basement had been bricked up. While the reason for the collapse has not yet been determined, the Master of Works suspects that a broken wall moved for lack of support. This led to the fall of the chimney head, causing extensive damage. The case for demolition of the property is to be heard by the Dean of Guild Court within the next few days.
We had a similar collapse at a tenement property in Stanmore Road, Dennistoun, a slum clearance area, at the beginning of January. A burst water pipe had softened the ground near the wall foundations. The Secretary of State's responsibilities for these matters are confirming compulsory purchase orders. Otherwise he has no part to play in the procedure for dealing with dangerous buildings.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Stanmore Road is not in Dennistoun; it is in Cathcart.
Dr. Mabon: I apologise. It does not make any difference to the fact that throughout the city there are numerous problems.
One of the lessons of the storm damage done by the great gale of 1968 and the consequence of having to survey all the damaged property, which involved thousands of houses, was to demonstrate clearly that in Glasgow properties had been sadly neglected by many factors and landlords over a great length of time. This is the reason why the storm took such a toll of property and left many properties in a state of uncertainty about their future and precise length of life.
The corporation's officials now have a large encyclopaedia of knowledge about these properties that they did not have before. They welcome the 1969 Act not only for the obvious reason that it helps to improve houses, but also for the additional power which is given, which clarifies beyond doubt that the corporation can take extra action not only in relation to dangerous buildings after they have been negelected, but before.
Section 24(1) of the Housing (Scotland Act, 1969, provides:
"Where a local authority are satisfied that any house in their district is in a state of serious disrepair, they may serve on the person having control of the house a notice—"

739
Subsection (2) says the local authority
"…may themselves execute the works…".
Subsection (4) says:
"Where a local authority are of the opinion that a house in their district is in need of repair, although not in a state of serious disrepair…."
This was because we discovered after the storm damage that the preceeding Acts of Parliament, including the consolidating Act of 1966, allowed the local authority to intervene only after the house had become unfit for human habitation. Section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, operates only after a building has become dangerous and Section 16 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, operates after the premises are in a state such as to be a nuisance.
Only local Acts such as those in Edinburgh entitled the corporation to step in and repair properties before they had reached the state of serious disrepair. We have remedied that in the Measure by giving the right to every local authority to step in and repair properties before they reach a state of serious disrepair. The Government hope that that Section will be translated into reality by every local authority, particularly by the great City of Glasgow, which has such a terrible heritage of buildings. I am assured by Glasgow that it is very much alert to the need for action where a building is dangerous and it is dealing with such buildings. That is certainly a specialist job.
I do not know all the details of the exchanges between my hon. Friend and the corporation on the cases he has mentioned, but I wholly agree that action to deal with dangerous buildings and buildings which are reasonably and responsibly suggested to be dangerous should be swift and effective. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, both as a councillor and Member of Parliament, for having always acted responsibly in his dealings with officials and in reporting the many defects in housing in his part of the city. I sincerely hope that the corporation, whose responsibility this clearly is, will take close note of what has been said tonight and make sure that its procedures are fully effective in future.
On the broader front, the real root of the problem is that many of the old tenement buildings in Glasgow have simply
740
been there for far too long and have not been kept in proper repair. They certainly do not offer an acceptable standard of housing. My hon. Friend said that the real answer to the problem was to build more houses, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have discussed this with the corporation on many occasions since I was first Joint Under-Secretary of State. One of the first objectives we tried to secure with the corporation was the construction in the calendar years 1965–69 inclusive of 25,000 houses. We earmarked sites in the city for 27,500, giving ourselves that 10 per cent. excess in case of difficulties over site clearance, acquisition and so on. In fact the total built in those five years was 24,264, which, considering all the difficulties of the city, is quite good.
Unfortunately, while the number of houses built has been almost up to expectation that is not true of starts. This is where we are really alarmed. That is why on 29th January my noble friend the Minister of State had a wide-ranging discussion with the corporation on new building in the city, the improvement of existing sub-standard houses, and consequential necessary building outside the city for Glasgow families, and the speeding up of the comprehensive development areas, which are not up to schedule. If one does not arrange for approvals and starts in large numbers, one cannot expect a large number of completions at the other end. While we have done reasonably well, with the corporation, over the five years I mentioned, that cannot be said of the next five years. That is why we have set up a working party. I am glad that the corporation quite recently ratified the arrangement whereby a joint working party of its officials and the Scottish Development Department will work together in trying to get agreement, and put into practice that agreement, on the biggest number of houses to be built on available sites that is practicable and possible.
In 1965 the number of starts was 5,238. In 1966 the figure was 4,673 and in 1967 it was 5,486. That is why 1968 and 1969 were such good years for completions. The good work had been done in starts in 1965, 1966, and 1967. In 1968 the number of starts fell to 3,278, and it may be argued—and I have every sympathy with this view—that one reason for that was the diversion of forces from

741
building new houses to repairing houses damaged by storm. I am willing to agree that it is possibly fair to argue that that made a marginal difference, and this is not a party political point. It may be argued that the administration had a heavy burden to carry. It was agreed on both sides of the House that the first priority was to repair storm-damaged houses, irrespective of what the effect of transferring the labour force to that work would be on the construction of new houses.
But that cannot be said of 1969, when the number of starts in Glasgow was 1,311, which means that this year, in 1971, and in 1972, we shall see a fall in the number of houses built in Glasgow. That is why my right hon. Friend has urged his Ministers to do their best to try to secure the building of more houses outside the city to make up for the shortfall which there is certain to be in the city as a result of the failure to achieve an adequate number of starts last year.
The figure of 3,000 mentioned by my hon. Friend was the figure announced by the corporation prior to the visit of my noble Friend the Minister of State on 29th January. That figure was said to be what would be realised during each of the live calendar years beginning this year. We do not regard that as an adequate number. It may be that the working party will demonstrate to us that that is the only practicable number that can be built. If that is so, it is all the more important that the number of houses directly available to the city factor should be increased to meet the shortfall between the number of houses which can be built in the city, and the number of families who need to be rehoused.
We reckon that, taking into account all the different agencies, the S.S.H.A., and so on, in dealing with overspill throughout Scotland the new towns should take in at least three cases out of five. We reckon that they should take in well over 80 per cent. of their new inhabitants from the City of Glasgow, if not formally at least indirectly. About 10,000 families should be rehoused each year. That is the ideal figure, and is the one which was announced way back in 1957 as being the objective of that decade, but it was never achieved.
742
As long as these families cannot be rehoused in the numbers that I have suggested, and the longer this is postponed, the slower must be the inauguration of housing treatment areas. It is not possible to clear sites without first rehousing families. Those who know Glasgow intimately know that in the Gorbals area, which is two-thirds cleared and where one-third has been recreated, for every three families which used to live in that one-third, now only one family can return. This is a simple fact of the redevelopment of the city. No one can expect to go back to the high density figures which there were in this area. The number of families housed will total one-third to one-half of the numbers that were there before.
That being so, it follows that Glasgow, whether it likes it or not, has to turn its mind to arrangements outwith the city and consider the tenancies of houses outside. Alas, in the arrangement which we have concluded with the Corporation about Erskine the corporation has been content to accept only the limited nomination system which was devised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, rather than the exclusive system which we urged as being the right way to deal with the problems of the city. If the city factor does not have direct access to houses outside the city for rehousing families, he will have to be an administrative genius to accommodate these families through the normal machinery to which I have referred.
While I am grateful that we have arrived at some settlement for the rehousing of people in Erskine, I am most dissatisfied that the city has failed to grasp the fact that it should have houses outside the city to rehouse these families.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend wants to see more building done in his constituency, many parts of which are derelict. While it is important for the corporation to get on with the job of developing the sites that it has acquired, it is to be hoped that it will advance the number of comprehensive development area plans that it submits to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, between June, 1966, and the end of 1969, we did not receive one such plan. That represented a three-year blank.

743
The factors I have mentioned are, of course, of vital importance. We must, naturally, have the programming of housing within the city. If the figure is up to 3,000, we must press on with building more houses outside the city. If it is more than 3,000, we must not be content; and with the number of starts at slightly over 1,000, we cannot regard that as good enough for Glasgow.
It must be thoroughly appreciated that unless we push forward we will never get ahead with clearing away the old
744
slum houses that exist in Glasgow, remembering that they represent a great danger to the families living in them. I hope that we will not have occasion to have another Adjournment debate like this and that, with God's grace, none of the calamities of which we are keenly aware will occur. We will never be certain of that until we solve the house building problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Malta
  Malta
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Indian Army (Widows' Pensions)
  Indian Army (Widows' Pensions)
  Development Schemes
  Development Schemes
  Multilateral Aid and Agencies
  Multilateral Aid and Agencies
  U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (Target)
  U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (Target)
  South Vietnam
  South Vietnam
  Pearson Commission Recommendations (Deputation)
  Pearson Commission Recommendations (Deputation)
  Official Aid and Private Investment
  Official Aid and Private Investment
  Kenya (Land Settlement)
  Kenya (Land Settlement)
  Afro-Asian Institute (Scholarships)
  Afro-Asian Institute (Scholarships)
  Turks and Caicos Islands (Medical Supplies)
  Turks and Caicos Islands (Medical Supplies)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Technical Colleges (Industrial Training Courses)
  Technical Colleges (Industrial Training Courses)
  West of Scotland (Glasgow)
  West of Scotland (Glasgow)
  Unemployment (Dorset)
  Unemployment (Dorset)
  Casual Labour
  Casual Labour
  Unemployment (Mexborough and Wombwell)
  Unemployment (Mexborough and Wombwell)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Adult Education Programme (Pollution)
  Adult Education Programme (Pollution)
  Estuarine Barrages (Ecological Effects)
  Estuarine Barrages (Ecological Effects)
  Sea Birds (Deaths)
  Sea Birds (Deaths)
  Youth Centres
  Youth Centres
  Primary School Pupil (Cost)
  Primary School Pupil (Cost)
  Hull
  Hull
  Commonwealth Immigrant Children
  Commonwealth Immigrant Children
  Metrication
  Metrication
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Members of Parliament (By-Election Writs)
  Members of Parliament (By-Election Writs)
  Crime Prevention (Aids)
  Crime Prevention (Aids)
  Open Space Theatre (Police Raid)
  Open Space Theatre (Police Raid)
  Breathalyser Tests (Durham and Gateshead)
  Breathalyser Tests (Durham and Gateshead)
  Derelict Industrial Buildings (Fires)
  Derelict Industrial Buildings (Fires)
  Committee on Intrusions into Privacy
  Committee on Intrusions into Privacy
  West Yorkshire Constabulary
  West Yorkshire Constabulary
  Car Parking Offences
  Car Parking Offences
  Welsh Prisoners (Contempt of Court)
  Welsh Prisoners (Contempt of Court)
  Convicted Murderers (Life Sentence)
  Convicted Murderers (Life Sentence)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  South African Cricket Tour (Police)
  South African Cricket Tour (Police)
  Air Guns and Air Pistols (Control)
  Air Guns and Air Pistols (Control)
  Small Lotteries
  Small Lotteries
  Abnormal Loads (Police Regulations)
  Abnormal Loads (Police Regulations)
TECHNOLOGY
  Unemployment, Scotland
  Unemployment, Scotland
  Concorde Aircraft
  Concorde Aircraft
  Beagle Aircraft Ltd. (Creditors)
  Beagle Aircraft Ltd. (Creditors)
  London (Factory Sites)
  London (Factory Sites)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  High Commission, Lesotho
  High Commission, Lesotho
  Turks and Caicos (Telex Communications)
  Turks and Caicos (Telex Communications)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (East Africa)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (East Africa)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Private Investment (Developing Countries)
  Private Investment (Developing Countries)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
BOARD OF TRADE
  Air Traffic Control
  Air Traffic Control
  Civil Estimates (Item A28)
  Civil Estimates (Item A28)
  Steel Bar
  Steel Bar
  Daily Telegraph (Price)
  Daily Telegraph (Price)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Derelict Land, Lancashire
  Derelict Land, Lancashire
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Housing, Brighton
  Housing, Brighton
  Greater London Development Plan
  Greater London Development Plan
  Sewer Outfall System (Brighton)
  Sewer Outfall System (Brighton)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Fund
  Agricultural Fund
  MIDDLE EAST (PALESTINE REFUGEES)
  MIDDLE EAST (PALESTINE REFUGEES)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  WELSH LANGUAGE
  WELSH LANGUAGE
  NORTH-EAST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (DEPUTATION)
  NORTH-EAST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (DEPUTATION)
  STATUTORY BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  STATUTORY BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  NURSES (PAY)
  NURSES (PAY)
CIVIL SERVICE
  State Boards (Chairmen)
  State Boards (Chairmen)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  Development Areas (Publicly-Owned Industries)
  Development Areas (Publicly-Owned Industries)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Green Papers
  Green Papers
  Pensions (Secretaries)
  Pensions (Secretaries)
  Members' Employees (Office Services)
  Members' Employees (Office Services)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Central Office Block)
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Central Office Block)
SCOTLAND
  Health Services (Reorganisation)
  Health Services (Reorganisation)
  White Fish Authority (Publicity Scheme)
  White Fish Authority (Publicity Scheme)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  National Superannuation Proposals (Regulations)
  National Superannuation Proposals (Regulations)
  National Insurance (Personal Case)
  National Insurance (Personal Case)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Disregards
  Disregards
  Abortion Operations (Brighton)
  Abortion Operations (Brighton)
  Accidents (Brain Damage)
  Accidents (Brain Damage)
  Mentally Handicapped, Brighton (Residential Home)
  Mentally Handicapped, Brighton (Residential Home)
  Hospitals, Islington (Staff)
  Hospitals, Islington (Staff)
TRANSPORT
  A12 (Kessingland)
  A12 (Kessingland)
  Road Building Projects, Gateshead
  Road Building Projects, Gateshead
WALES
  Bridgend (Northern Bypass)
  Bridgend (Northern Bypass)

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

JUMBO-JETS AND LONDON AIRPORT FACILITIES
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the restaurant and hotel facilities at Heathrow Airport are adequate to cope with the unexpected return, or delay of (a) a Jumbo-jet aircraft; (b) two Jumbo-jet aircraft]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I understand that the catering facilities at the intercontinental terminal at Heathrow can at present provide some 850 places, which is more than twice the average passenger load of a Jumbo-jet. The British Air-ports Authority have plans for doubling this capacity by mid-1971. The B.A.A. do not at present provide hotels, but there is hotel accommodation near the Airport for well over 2,000 beds. There are plans for more than doubling this accommodation. In exceptional circumstances, these hotel and catering facilities may well be overcrowded, but the developments proposed seem to be reasonably in line with requirements.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that full Answer. Will he agree that it is one thing to be able to cater for the normal run of air services, but an entirely different thing to be able to cater for the unexpected return of these colossal aeroplanes? Am I to understand from his reply that if these aircraft have to return, as a result of, say, some mechanical failure, the services will be adequate for people to be fed in an acceptable manner?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl's opening philosophical remark. It is not possible now to cater entirely satisfactorily if there is a complete close-down through fog or for other reasons. But I I am told that the British Airports Authority—and this is a matter for them —have in hand proposals which, taking into account the as yet rather uncertain rate of build-up of introduction of these new aircraft, which at the moment is only one a day, should reasonably meet the circumstances. I think we have all had experiences enough not to be absolutely confident in all circumstances, but from my inquiries I feel that the British Airports Authority are very well seized of the problem. They have in hand a £13 million development. I can give the noble Earl much more detail if he wants it.

THE METRIC SYSTEM AND PARLIAMENT
3.9 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: 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 to what extent they consider that this country is now committed to changing over to the metric system; whether Parliament has given its consent to such a change; and if not, when it will be asked to do so.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, the metric system of measurements became lawful in the United Kingdom under the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act 1897, though there are still some legal limitations to its use. In 1965 the Federation of British Industries reported that the majority of British industry favoured the adoption of the metric system as the primary system of weights and measures for the country as a whole.
The Government decided in 1965 to accept industry's advice. In 1968 my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology announced in another place that the Government accepted the end of 1975 as the target date for substantial completion of the change by as many

1281
sectors as possible. He announced his intention to establish the Metrication Board to facilitate the change and indicated that the Government would in due course propose legislation to remove obstacles to the complete adoption of the metric system. In 1969 the Minister said that this legislation would provide for defining the authorised metric units and for relating them to other units. A widely representative Advisory Committee on Legal Units of Measurement has been established to help the Minister.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government agree that a change which will affect the daily lives of every man, woman and child in this country, should not be made without the direct authorisation of this current Parliament, rather than of a Parliament of the last century?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, we are substantially concerned at present with a programme being carried forward under the impetus of the wishes of those who, in their business lives, will be affected by this change. As I indicated, there will in due course be occasion for examination of the legislative part of this process.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to ask one more supplementary question, but are Her Majesty's Government able to give us the assurance that, when Parliament is asked to authorise what it has to authorise, it will be done at an early enough date so that if for any reason authorisation is withheld Parliament will not be told that the country is already committed and that it is to late to go back?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the situation at present is that in a number of industries action is taking place upon programmes which are quite permissible under existing legislation. The times at which it is hoped by the industries concerned to complete those programmes vary from the present year onwards. I am sure that when the time comes for legislation there will be an opportunity then for a full examination of all the aspects of this upon which there is a legal bearing.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we should have lost
1282
a great deal of exports but for the fact that many civil engineering institutions and organisations have already adopted this system and thereby obtained valuable export orders?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, is the noble Lord's Answer intended to cover lineal measurement on the ground, so that the cartography of this country will have to be substantially changed?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Yes, my Lords; that is the position. Indeed, the Ordnance Survey have already converted the surveying of two of their most popular series of maps to a metric basis.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, can the Minister say why it is not possible to introduce the metric system of weights and measures rather nearer to the introduction of the metric system of currency, which would be a great advantage to quite a large number of people in this country?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the process of transferring to a metric system of weights and measures is a very large one and, in the case of some industries, extremely complex. The Government are of the view that the present method of proceeding and the timetable so far indicated is the most appropriate one.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the United States and Canada are contemplating a similar change?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, Canada has already announced its intention of changing to the metric system. The United States is the only one of the major countries of the world which is as yet uncommitted, and even there there is an extensive study on the way— —and I quote:
"to determine the impact on the United States of the increasing worldwide use of the metric system, and to appraise the desirability and practicability of increasing the use of metric weights and measures in the United States."
Perhaps I may add that at present 90 per cent. of the world's population lives in countries which either use the metric system or are committed to changing over to the use of it.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was asked a

1283
question last week on the metric system: what is a kilogramme and a litre in the avoirdupois system of England? Could my noble friend give me the answer so that I may pass it on?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I will communicate privately with my noble friend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his original Answer means that the legislation which will come before Parliament will in a sense be consequential on changes which are already being made, and will simply reflect the changes that have to be made in, for example, weights and measures legislation?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, there is, of course, at present a considerable body of statute law which is based upon the Imperial units of measurement, although in most cases there is also a statutory metric equivalent for those Imperial units under the Weights and Measures Act. In other cases— for example, where the figures concerned are inconvenient—the legislation can often be amended under existing powers. There are, however, further cases where new powers are needed to effect a change, and it is these new powers which, among other changes, will have to be covered at an appropriate time by legislation which will be brought before Parliament.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, did the noble Lord not say, in reply to an earlier supplementary question, that the United States is the only country which is not committed; and, if so, does that imply that this country is committed?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I thought I had made the position clear in the statement that I made: that on three successive occasions Her Majesty's Government have accepted the view which had been urged upon them in 1965 by industry that there should be a changeover to the metric system.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if I misheard the noble Lord I apologise, but can he confirm that the Ordnance Survey have in fact statutory authority for changing over, as he has said, and are not, as it were, "jumping the gun"?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I should be very surprised indeed if the Ordnance Survey were proceed-ing without a very sound legal basis for what they are doing.

IRISH CITIZENS AND ALIENS LAW
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reassure Irish people that they will not be treated as aliens.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have no proposals for introducing legislation to alter the existing arrangements.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that comforting reply, in which I should perhaps declare a vestigial interest, may I ask him whether he could extend the assurance which he has given so that people from Commonwealth countries, particularly those in difficulties in the countries where they live, will have the same freedom of movement as people who live in Ireland?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord's relationship with Ireland, despite his name, is even more vestigial than mine. I think I should make clear that the situation is entirely different. An Irish citizen is not a British subject but is treated in the United Kingdom as if he were. He is not an alien under United Kingdom law. I do not propose to be drawn into discussing the Commonwealth Immigrants Act on a Question about Ireland.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, following that statement on Ireland by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may I ask whether he would not agree with me that the Irish are very fortunate to be able to have their cake and eat it?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, speaking from my vestigial background, I should be prepared to say that that applies both ways.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would it be true to say that in certain cases a Commonwealth immigrant has a British passport but is treated as though he had not?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord will not draw me on that. I would just point out that there is no need to use passports in the common travel area of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, could I assure this House—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO!
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the Ireland Act 1949 enshrines certain rights for the Southern Irish and also gives a constitutional guarantee to the Northern Irish? It was a very statesmanlike Act introduced by Lord Attlee's Government, and we have no desire to have it amended as suggested by Mr. Enoch Powell the other day.
LORD SHACKLETON: Noble Lords are getting the best they can out of this. I am very familiar with the Act: along with a number of other noble Lords I helped, when in another place, to pass it. We have no doubt noted what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Welsh also should have most-favoured-nation treatment?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, speaking again as an Anglo-Irishman, I am rather in favour of the English occasionally having most-favoured-nation treatment.

MEDICAL SCHOOLS AND WOMEN STUDENTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 medical schools which limit the admission of women students to a small percentage of the total intake
1286
are contravening the Sex Disqualification Removal Act 1919.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to construe the law. Moreover, I am advised that if there were any contravention of the Sex Disqualification Removal Act 1919 it would not be for Her Majesty's Government to enforce the law, and that the remedy would be by way of civil injunction by any woman aggrieved.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand from that Answer that my noble friend agrees with me that the law is being contravened? —and I ask this because of the fact that this particular contravention bears very hardly on some of the most brilliant girls in the country, and is anti-social. Am I further to understand that the Government are going to do nothing when the law is being broken?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that as a representative of the Government I cannot say that the law is being contravened. As she will know better than I, the universities are autonomous and the medical schools are equally so. I can only say that I have studied very carefully the prospectuses of various medical schools and I am interested to see that at any rate in two cases there is a reservation for a number of places for women: in other words, that they are being discriminated in favour of, rather than against. But, of course, that does not apply to all prospectuses.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask one more question, in view of what my noble friend has said? Is she aware that the University Grants Commission has specified only that a medical school in London must have a women intake of over 15 per cent.? And is she aware that Charing Cross Hospital has 25 per cent., which they regard as very generous, and that the only medical school in London which approaches the matter on an equitable basis is the Royal Free, which takes 50 per cent. women and 50 per cent. men? In view of our desperate shortage of doctors, why should not all the medical schools take some of these brilliant girls who are breaking their hearts because they cannot get a place?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, in support of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that in the United Nations when it comes to a comparison between the number of women medical doctors that we in the Western World and in the United Kingdom have and the number that there are in the Communist countries, we are absolutely put to shame?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that both my noble friends will appreciate my position—I wish I were speaking from where they are speaking rather than from here. But I should like to say straight away that I am aware of the facts mentioned by my noble friends Lady Gaitskell and Lady Summerskill. The only thing I would say on those figures is that there has been an increase in the number of women taking up places in medical schools. I would whole-heartedly agree that anything that a man can do a woman can do as well, if not better.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her original Answer was a statement that Her Majesty's Government are totally indifferent as to whether the law is kept or not? Is that the attitude of the Government?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, perhaps I might refer my noble friend to the Answer; and I may say to my noble friends that this is a little hard on me—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But carry on!
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I said that it is not for Her Majesty's Government to construe the law. I am advised that this is the line that must be taken in this matter.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many males who would also welcome an increase in the number of women doctors?
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, may I assure the noble Baroness that I am not going to ask any question about the Isle of Man?

NORWICH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
READING CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

GAME BILL [H.L.]
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Bill read 3a: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Report received.

RATE REBATES (LIMITS OF INCOME) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1970
3.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOT-TISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1970 be approved. The Draft Order, which relates to Scotland only, has already been approved by the other place. Its purpose is straightforward and non-controversial, and it has been generally welcomed. Under the scheme

1289
initiated by the Rating Act 1966, rebates are available to ratepayers whose income does not exceed a certain amount. The limits laid down for the maximum rebate stand at present at £9 a week for a single person and £11 for a married couple, with an additional allowance of £2 for each child. The effect of this Order is to raise the limits by £1 per week in the case of a single person and by £1 5s. in the case of a married couple.
The Order is needed now because of an increase in the State retirement pension last November. That means that pensioners, who comprise a high proportion of those who come within the field of the rate rebate scheme, will be assessed for the purposes of rebate on a higher income, and some of them might find the benefit of the pension increase whittled away by a consequential reduction in the rebate. That would be very undesirable, so the Rating Act provides for increases in the income limits to be made by order as necessary. This was done on the occasion of an earlier pensions increase in 1967, and this Order seeks to repeat the process.
This is a purely Scottish Order. That does not mean that Scotland is getting preference over England. An Order for England and Wales will be introduced at a later date. The Scottish Order is needed first because of the different rating years in the two countries, which affects the period over which payment of rebate is made and also the prior period over which income is assessed. If the Order were not to come into operation now but were delayed until later on, some Scottish pensioners, whose income assessment is already taking account of the pension increase last November, might find themselves dropping out of benefit temporarily. This is why we need the Scottish Order now. In England and Wales the effect of the pension increase will not be felt until next October, and so a later Order is appropriate there.
My Lords, the rate rebate scheme is not an ambitious social security measure: it is simply a way of tempering the rigour of the rating system for those who are least able to bear it. We believe that it succeeds in this minor objective quite well. At a total cost of under £2 million, it relieves between 90,000 and 100,000
1290
households in Scotland of rate burdens now averaging out at about £20 a year. It is a worthwhile scheme and deserves to be kept in good working order until such time as the whole rating system can be thoroughly overhauled. The Order before the House does not seek to impose an additional charge on the Exchequer or on local rates. It is not concerned with the amount of benefit but is concerned with the conditions of qualifying for benefit; and it does not aim at widening the category of those who qualify but simply at maintaining the present position. If the Order were not passed, we could expect a saving of up to £200,000 a year, but against that 10,000 householders, mainly pensioners, would be losing a benefit which Parliament intended that they should get. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1970, laid before the House on 4th February, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his explanation of this Order. I say at once that I am sure it has the full support of your Lordships—certainly it has the support of those who sit on this side of the House. The noble Lord has, I think, answered in advance all the questions I was going to ask. But may I put one question to him to make quite certain that we have correctly understood what he said? He said, I think—I tried to note his words—that but for this Order some pensioners might find themselves dropping out temporarily; that is to say, that they would lose part or the whole of their rebate because of the increase in the National Insurance pension last November. Is it quite certain that none will drop out temporarily? Is this Order, so to speak, retrospective? Does it cover those who will be getting an increased income between the time when the increased National Insurance benefit came into effect last November and March 16 when this Order is expressed to come into effect? Will none of them lose temporarily in respect of the current rate half-year? That is the only question I want to put to the noble Lord because I should like to be quite certain about it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble

1291
Lord? I wonder how he reaches the figure of £318 0s. 10d.? It is rather a curious figure. In the Explanatory Note it say £313 0s. 10d., that is, £12 5s. 0d. a week. That is not so. I wonder whether the noble Lord would clarify the relationship of those two figures.
LORD HUGHE'S: My Lords, it is not £318 0s. 10d., it is £318 10s.—I wondered why we got down to coppers. It is a misreading. I must agree that £318 10s. 0d. is not £12 10s. 0d. a week, as stated. I do not know what the answer is. Is the answer coming from the Official Box? No, it is the answer to the previous question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. But it may turn up. If I break my intention, and keep this discussion going on long enough, the answer may emerge!
At the moment I will confirm the correctness of the noble Earl's arithmetic, although as I have not found the second figure I do not know whether he is making a mistake in reading it as he made a slight mistake in reading the first one. If I may go on to answer the first question, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, misunderstood what I was saying. I was attempting to convey that, because of the difference in the rating years, if we were to wait until the time that is appropriate for the English Order, some people in fact would have dropped out temporarily; but, by bringing in the Order at the present time, we prevent this from happening. None, in fact, will drop out if the Order is passed at the present time. There is a 7½ month gap between the income assessment periods, so that the noble Lord can be assured that what he wants us to do by this Order is in fact what we shall be able to do. I am afraid that my friends at the Official Box are taking a little longer to write out the answer than I expected, but it now seems to have arrived.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is not the answer that it is for a six-month period and not for a twelve-month period?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Earl has anticipated the answer. I have it here almost as a piece of algebra—"26 weeks x £12 5s. = £318 10s."
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GENERAL HATE BILL
3.36 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Ascertainment of gross value of dwelling-house]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 12, after ("list") insert ("as a whole").
The noble Lord said: This is an obscurely technical Bill, and I must frankly admit that my Amendments to it are obscurely technical, too. I do not imagine that they will attract popular attention through the mass media publicity. Nevertheless, they are all intended to protect the interests of the general public and therefore I do not apologise for asking the Committee to consider them. It might save time if your Lord-ships were willing for me to explain Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together because they are linked.
On Second Reading I questioned the last six lines of the new subsection (2A) to be inserted in the 1967 Act, that is to say, lines 9 to 14 on page 2 of the Bill. I raised the question whether the insertion of this provision was really necessary. Having considered what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in reply, I accept the value of it; the only purpose of my Amendment is to clarify it and to remove possible doubts. In tabling these Amendments I am fortified by the fact that the Minister of State, in Standing Committee in another place, where this provision was questioned, said:
"I understand the Committee's concern. I will look at it again."
He was referring then to the drafting of these lines and to the; question whether they might remove a certain protection

1293
from the ratepayer who wished to appeal. Nevertheless, at the Report stage the Minister did not table a Government Amendment, and the matter was not further considered in another place.
As I understand it, the "valuation list", mentioned in lines 11 and 12 on page 2, is a collective term. It connotes the valuation list as a whole, and not the valuation list considered as an assemblage of a great number of individual assessments. Conversely, in line 13 I understand that the word "dwelling-houses" to be intended to mean particular dwelling-houses and not the whole complete assemblage of all the dwelling-houses in the rating area. If it meant that, then this provision, presumably, would authorise the valuation officer to assess the whole of the dwelling-houses in one area solely by reference to other dwelling-houses, which, ipso facto, must be outside the area. I do not think that is what it means. My two Amendments—to insert the words. "as a whole" in line 12 and the word "particular" in line 13—are designed to put beyond doubt what it means and not to make any difference to the meaning as the Government doubtless intend it to be.
My concern about the wording as it stands is lest this particular provision should be used in an argument, or in the discussion of appeals, for a purpose different from the one intended. I believe I am right in saying that the lines 9 to 14 are desired to be inserted by the Government as a protection against the whole of the valuation list being challenged, and possibly set aside, in circumstances such as occurred in the Petrie case. If Parliament approves the inclusion of the six lines in the new Act, then the valuation authority will not be at risk of having the whole of their valuation list set aside in such circumstances.
My fear is that if we keep the six lines in and do not amend them as I am suggesting, the provision may be read as conferring a sort of sanctity on each individual assessment in the valuation list, thereby rendering it more difficult for the ratepayer who is appealing against his individual assessment to succeed in his challenge. I do not believe that that is what is intended, but certainly the considerable discussion which took place in Standing Committee of another place indi-
1294
cated that there were uncertainty and dubiety about it in some very well-informed minds; and the Minister of State himself thought it was worth looking at again. I hope therefore that the Government will be able to give me a considered and friendly reply, because I am sure that there is no difference at all in the object which we are both seeking to achieve. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: I think there is little question that we are after the same thing. The noble Lord wishes to achieve the greatest possible clarity with his Amendments, but I think that the Amendments would change the effect of the Bill as drafted. Whether he means that or not, of course, depends on what he thinks the Bill as drafted says. This is a complicated matter, and let me do my best to explain it. The two Amendments (I agree that we should discuss them together) would not affect the protection given in respect of the whole valuation list but would still permit attack upon any scale which would be less than that of the whole list—that is, on an individual assessment or on individual assessments forming part of a list. Thus the protection which we seek to give by this Bill would be nullified to a greater or lesser extent. I think that the main object of the Bill would be put in danger by accepting these Amendments. I do not think, it is the noble Lord's purpose to do that, but that, it seems, would be the effect of them.
Let me say again, as I said on Second Reading, that the existing wording of the Bill does not say that an assessment made by reference to all the evidence mentioned in the Bill is unchallengeable. Individual assessments can still be taken to appeal on the ground that they are individually wrong. The Bill merely prevents the possibility that an individual assessment, some individual assessments and, in an extreme case, all those which make up the entire list, could be invalidated on the ground that they had been made by reference to particular kinds of evidence with which the Bill deals. I should like the noble Lord and the Committee to be quite clear about this. If the Bill goes through unamended, ratepayers will still be able to challenge an individual assessment on all sorts of grounds, except the ground that this wider type of evidence has been taken into

1295
account. A ratepayer can challenge it on the ground that, though it has been taken into account, it has been wrongly applied, or on any of the familiar traditional grounds. The Bill makes no change in that. It says simply that it is not sufficient ground for throwing out one assessment, or indeed the whole list, that a wider sort of evidence has been applied to it.
The noble Lord spoke of conferring a sort of sanctity on individual valuations, but I think that he and I are together in hoping that this will not be the case; in fact I assure him that, according to the Government's understanding of the Bill, that will not be the case. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place said he would look at this again to see whether clarity could be increased, and that has been done. I should hesitate to say that the clarity is at its maximum, since it may have misled the noble Lord—and, as we all know, he is lynx-eyed in this respect. The noble Lord's Amendment would do more than increase the clarity; it would change the effect, which I do not think he wants. We will have one more look at the clarity. If we can find clearer words, and perhaps if he can help us to find clearer words, we may revert to it at a later stage.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I hope that my noble friend will consider this point carefully, because evidently it has caused a great deal of perplexity to lawyers. I have received some representations about it from the Law Society, who do not find it at all clear. I confess that I still do not see any very good reason why the last six lines of this clause should be there at all. I appreciate the point that it is not intended to prevent any individual ratepayer from appealing against his assessment on any ground whatsoever: that, of course, must be abundantly safeguarded. The object of this Bill is merely to enable a new kind of evidence to be used when there is a dispute about a valuation; it is just that and nothing more, and in that respect I am entirely in favour of it. It has long been a mistake in our law that evidence of this kind could not be used. Surely it is sufficient now to say that it may be used, without trying to draw a whole series of consequences from that.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord. Kennet,
1296
for his helpfulness on this matter. I assured him that I had no intention by my Amendment of changing the law. He spoke about Amendment No. 1, and I do not think he mentioned No. 2. But I should like to accept his offer. Already it is clear that this passage has been examined by great authorities on the drafting of Parliamentary Bills, and I certainly am not capable of challenging them on their own ground. But the support I have had from the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, encourages me to think that we may make one more effort to increase the clarity of the meaning and purpose of this passage. Therefore, with the prospect of further talks with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 9 of General Rate Act 1967
". In subsection (1) of section 9 of the General Rate Act 1967 the words "the rating authority may refund that amount or a part thereof" shall be amended so as to read and shall be deemed always to have read, "the rating authority shall refund that amount or the appropriate part thereof and the amendment of the valuation list on which a refund under paragraph (a) or in appropriate cases paragraph (c) is made shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the period in respect of which the refund is made."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This new clause would do two things. First of all, it would render mandatory on the local authority the refunding of rates that had been paid in excess. That situation may arise particularly when an entry in a valuation list has been found to be excessive and has consequently been altered. The curious thing is that the General Rate Act 1967 says that in such circum-stances the local authority "may" refund that amount or a part thereof. It would be most churlish of any local authority to refuse to refund rates that have obviously been paid in excess, and I can see no reason whatever why the word should not be "shall" refund rather than "may" refund. I do not know whether there have been cases of a local

1297
auhority refusing to refund rates that have been paid in excess, but I am sure there would be grave Parliamentary trouble if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue refused to refund tax that had been paid in excess, relying on a statement in the law that they "may" refund it and not "shall" refund it. The first part of the new clause, therefore, is relatively simple.
The second part is more complex and goes back to a discussion that we had on the Report stage of the Housing Bill last Session, on July 22. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me not to press the matter. He hoped that I would agree that it should be pursued, if pursued at all, on some other occasion, because it was really too late to do so at that stage of the Housing Bill; and I accepted his suggestion. The matter has been carried somewhat further since then by a decision in an appeal that came to your Lordships' House and was recently decided against the appellant. The second part of my new clause suggests that the law as it stands, and as it was applied by the House, is not really fair to individual householders, and in those circumstances this is the appropriate time to consider whether it should be amended as I suggest. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be very familiar with the facts, and I am not at all sure that I can succeed in making them crystal clear to other noble Lords in this Committee, or even to myself.
Briefly, the facts are that the Rent Act says that the determining date for deciding whether a house is subject to regulation is March 23, 1965, and if the valuation in London on that date was not more than £400, or not more than £200 in the rest of the country, then the house should be subject to regulation. On the other hand, if on that date the valuation was more than £400 or £200, as the case may be, then the house should not be subject to regulation and the tenancy would not be protected.
The case which came to your Lordships' House on appeal was a case where the valuation had been found to be excessive and had been altered back to a lower figure as from April 1, 1965, because the appeal against the assessment had been originated in, I think, May, 1965, and the law says that the entry in the valuation
1298
list shall be corrected back to the beginning of that financial year. But, of course, it was accepted by all concerned that the person had been paying excessive rates right back to 1963, the time when the new valuation came into effect. No alteration had been made in the house between 1963 and 1965, and the local authority, under the permissive power about which I have just been speaking, was giving a refund of rates back to 1963. It was therefore beyond doubt that the valuation of the house should have been at the lower and not the higher figure right back to April 1, 1963. But the law does not allow an actual alteration in the valuation list to be taken further back than the beginning of the year in which the appeal is initiated. Therefore the reduction in the valuation list could not be carried further back than April 1, 1965, though it was accepted that the valuation had been excessive for the two years previous to that.
The result is that a householder in such a position is debarred from taking advantage of the protected tenancy which would be available to anybody whose valuation on March 23, 1965—nine days before April 1, 1965—was below £400 or £200, as the case may be. The purpose of the second part of my new clause is to rectify the matter in both those respects: first of all, when a reduction in the valuation list has been approved to authorise its being carried back in the valuation list to the original time when the house was in the condition in which it was when it was revalued; and secondly, to make that effective for the purpose of protection under the Rent Acts from the critical date of March 23, 1965. I am not sure whether I have managed to explain that in terms which any other noble Lord in the Committee will under-stand. Having debated some aspects of this subject before with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I have no doubt that he is familiar with the point at issue, and I hope that he will give it his sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: On the first purpose of this Amendment, that is, making mandatory the reimbursement for rates which are later found to have been overpaid, I would say that it depends how far back you want to go. It is already mandatory to the point when you first thought of making your proposal for a

1299
lowering of the original value of your house. May I give your Lordships a straightforward example of the way the 1967 Act works? Where a house was assessed at a rateable value of £150 in 1963, and then, say in October, 1966, the occupier makes a proposal to have it reduced to £120. The matter takes some time to settle because of appeals to the courts. It is finally fixed in 1970 at £130. The ratepayer is then entitled to a refund on the difference between £150 and £130, going back to the 1st April, 1966 (that is the beginning of the rate period in which he first thought of making his proposal), and that is mandatory now. It is conferred by Section 79 of the 1967 General Rate Act. Moreover, the valuation list is altered with effect in this case from 1st April, 1966.
If the ratepayer then applies to the authority for a further refund going further back to before the time when he first thought of it, the rating authority obtain a certificate from the valuation officer to the effect that in his opinion the house ought to have been assessed at £130 for the earlier period. They can then, at their discretion, make a refund going back not to 1963 but to 1964, because Section 9 of the 1967 Act restricts refunds to payments made not more than six years previous to the application. In other words, if it is more than six years before the application it is statute barred. In those circumstances, the amendment to the valuation list is not made effective from the earlier date. So what the noble Lord is asking us to do with this Amendment is so to alter the case that I have been describing that the man has a right to the refund, not merely back to the moment when he first thought he wanted one but beyond that, back to the moment when his house was first uprated, or to six years before the time when the settlement was finally made, whichever is the later.
I have two things to say about this proposal. First of all, we have no evidence at all that the present system, whereby he must get his refund back to the moment of his proposal and may get it before, is giving rise to any hardship. Local authorities can pay right back to six years before, and from the evidence we have they are doing so in all cases where the ratepayer thinks that they ought to do so. This is a matter of common
1300
sense. If we were to amend the law so as to make it mandatory right back to the year "dot", then we should have to define the classes of people who could obtain it in much more detail than is done at present, when it is only discretionary and is left to the common sense of the rating authority to soft the matter out.
There is another aspect to it. Those things cut both ways, and rateable value assessments can on the proposal of the rating authority be valued upwards, as well as downwards on the proposal of the owner of the house. If one is going to extend the mandatory duty of the rating authority to pay back overpayments further into the past, one would have to consider whether one should not also extend the mandatory duty of the ratepayer to pay back to the local authority underpayments over the same period. At present both these matters are left to discretion.
I turn now to the second purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment, which is this matter of rewriting the value in the list back to an earlier period than at present obtains, when it has been lowered on a proposal for a reduction. I accept the noble Lord's account of the present state of the law and of its effect on the Rent Act and the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act. I will not burden the Committee by going into that again. Lord Brooke referred to the recent case which has come before this House in its judicial capacity, in which it was held that the procedure under Section 9 of the 1967 Act had no effect on the value in the valuation list for the purpose of determining whether a tenant had the benefit of a protected tenancy under the Rent Act 1965. That was the point the noble Lord had in mind. In his judgment at that time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, said:
"If such a refund could affect the status of a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Rent Acts, a dwelling-house which had been unprotected for several years might suddenly become protected and great complications might ensue. Such consequences cannot reasonably be supposed to have been intended by Parliament."
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, says that that is a confirmation of the present law as we all thought it was, but it is not a statement having anything to do with the desirability of changing it. I

1301
take it that that is Lord Brooke's position. This judgment is extremely recent, and I do not think it would be right for me to give any considered reaction to it yet, or to the matter as a whole. But it occurs to me to say that I am not sure that Parliament ought to do anything which this House, in its judicial capacity, has found that it cannot reasonably be supposed to have intended at any time in the past. We have this judgment handed down that to have done otherwise would have created such confusion that Parliament could not reasonably have been supposed to want it. That, of course, is true; and if we now change it we shall create precisely that confusion. This is, as I say, a new judgment, and I would ask the noble Lord to let it ride a little longer while we have a look at it. I do not think, at first blush, that there is now a case for changing the law in this respect which was lacking earlier.
4.7 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having taken so much trouble in replying to an Amendment of mine. I want to apologise to the Committee for having made confusion worse confounded in my first speech by using the word "appeal" in two different senses. In the second sense I should have used the word "proposal" and not "appeal". I am a little doubtful about the noble Lord's argument that a statement in a judgment to the effect that certain consequences cannot reasonably have been supposed to be intended by Parliament should act as a barrier to future attempts to change the law because Parliament is always supreme, and the fact that Parliament did not intend certain effects when legislation was passed some years ago should not debar Parliament from considering with an open mind whether it would now be desirable to make certain changes.
I hope that in his further consideration of the matter the noble Lord will not rely on the argument which he used to convey any suggestion to his own mind that this is not still an open question. I feel sure that the feeling of the Committee would be that Parliament should still retain the right to look at it again, whatever had been said about the past intentions of Parliament. I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulty about reaching
1302
a clear and conclusive decision now within the Government. I should like to give him time, yet I do not see how it is possible for me to do so, unless he is going to postpone the later stages of the Bill. It appears to me that this is the only Bill likely to come up in this Session dealing with the matter. Once it leaves your Lordships' House none of your Lordships will have any further opportunity, I should think, of pressing the matter again. Is seems highly unlikely that the Government, in its crowded programme, will introduce a one-clause Bill to deal with this matter, and it would be far too late for a Private Member's Bill to get through both Houses. Can the noble Lord indicate to me what timetable he has in mind? If he would do that, I should be very willing not to press the matter further now. I think he will understand the difficulty in which his kind offer places me.
LORD KENNET: First of all, let me specify again that it was not the fact that the judgment found that Parliament could not reasonably have intended this that made me think Parliament ought not, at this moment, to begin to intend it. The reason why the judgment found that Parliament could not reasonably have intended it was that such terrible confusion would ensue. If that was so when the judgment was given, that would be so if new legislation were introduced to give effect to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, desires.
I do not think it would be right to give the noble Lord any specific timetable about considering this matter further; indeed, I cannot. We have, of course, another stage on the present Bill, though, as he said, that is likely to be very shortly. While I agree that the judgment is no barrier to Parliament's changing its mind, yet the opinion of the confusion which would ensue is one that I must share, and I think all reasonable men must share, and this would seem to be something which ought to be considered pretty much in depth before any Government, or indeed any Private Member of either House who had the same thought, invited Parliament to change the law in this respect.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I must confess that I do not see my way ahead very clearly. I am sure it would be wrong for me to press this new clause

1303
now. Therefore, I must respect the noble Lord's argument that this judgment was given by the House, in its judicial capacity, a relatively short time ago. Doubtless it needs consideration. But I hope that he, for his part, will bear in mind the point I made in my last speech: that I think it would be unfair treatment of me, or any other noble Lord moving a new clause of this kind, if he was first of all asked not to press the matter because the Government needed further time to consider it, and then found a situation arising in which all the Bills in which the change could be incorporated during passage through your Lordships' House had already passed away from your Lordships' House. However, I feel sure that nothing would be gained by our debating this complex matter further this afternoon, and, having put on the Record what I have put on it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. Some of your Lordships who were here on the Committee stage of this Bill may remember that my noble friend Lord Belstead was, quite rightly, rather worried about an Amendment that I moved to subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill. I would ask your Lordships to cast your minds back to the principal Act of 1964, which I introduced into this House. Section 1(8) of that Act says that when the holder of a licence under that Act dies his personal representatives shall be deemed to have been granted a licence valid for a further year from date of death. Also under the Act the local authorities have the power to grant to the personal representatives of a deceased licensee an extension for the purpose perhaps of winding up a deceased's estate or some similar matter.
One of the provisions of the present Bill that I introduced to your Lordships
1304
is the granting by the local authorities of provisional three-monthly licences. As I pointed out, the object of having these provisional licences was to deal with a situation in which a riding establishment was not perhaps up to standard. On the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an Amendment to Clause 1(3) of this Bill, my object being to restrict this period to three months when the deceased had been the holder of a provisional licence. As my noble friend pointed out, these words which I had inserted by this Amendment might have been construed as referring to the deceased holder of an annual licence. They could have meant that his personal representatives also would have been restricted to a three-monthly extension period. As my noble friend Lord Belstead pointed out—in fact he rather put the cat among the pigeons, because I must say that I had not realised the fact—if a riding establishment is held on a tenancy, it appears that the tenancy is protected as an agricultural holding. So the landlord, when the tenant dies, has three months in which to give notice, and the tenant has the right to a full tenancy year. If my Amendment had been construed to mean that the personal representatives of the holder of an annual licence could get an extension of only three months, it would have been awkward.
My noble friend also pointed out (though I think this point was rather hypothetical) that under the Agriculture Bill now going through another place the occupier of a tied cottage will be allowed six months in which to vacate his cottage. This might have been awkward for an employee of a riding establishment, provided that my Amendment had been construed as the noble Lord suggested—and I am not saying that the noble Lord was 100 per cent. right, but that he was perhaps 95 per cent. right. My intention, as I said, was to allow these personal representatives of the deceased holder of an annual licence to continue to hold a licence for one year, as laid down in the principal Act. But I also intended, where the deceased was the holder of only a provisional licence —that is to say, a three-monthly licence —to limit the statutory extension to three months, assumirg of course that his personal representatives wished to continue to run the establishment.

1305
Under Amendment No. 1 which I am moving to-day I seek to make it absolutely foolproof that the personal representatives of the deceased holder of an annual licence will be able to run the establishment for a further year. With regard to the holders of provisional licences, of course if such a holder happens to be a tenant (and I think that my noble friend Lord Belstead is probably right when he says that riding establishments are agricultural holdings) the local authority has the right to extend the period of three months to the personal representatives of the deceased. But this must depend on the riding establishment: if it is disgracefully run then of course the local authority will not extend the time to the deceased's representatives.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? I am anxious to help, but I would point out that the Report has not yet been received. The Question has not been put, although I am sure we shall take into account what the noble Viscount has said.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 1 [Provisional licences for riding establishments]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I am afraid that I rather "jumped the gun" in moving Amendment No. 1 before the Report was received, but I hope that I shall not have to repeat what I have said. I think I have explained all that I need to explain on this Amendment. My original intention at Committee stage was exactly the same as it is now, but apparently the wording was not quite right. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("to the personal representatives of the holder of a provisional licence").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for his explanation of Amendment No. 1 which your Lordships may consider makes it unnecessary for Amendment No. 2, which stands in my name, to be moved. At the Committee stage it seemed that the Amend-
1306
ment which the noble Viscount then moved, substituting the words "three months" for the words "one year" in Section 1(8) of the principal Act meant that the personal representatives of a deceased annual licence holder would have only a three-monthly extension of the licence, and it was because of consequent difficulties that could be envisaged with tenancy agreements on tied cottages that I ventured to draw the attention of your Lordships to that Amendment.
The present Amendment leaves Section 1(8) unchanged for annual licences, and so entirely meets my fears in that respect. But despite the onus on provisional licensees to comply fully with all the requirements of this Act, the Amendment leaves only three months' grace to the personal representatives of a deceased provisional licence holder. But the noble Viscount has pointed out two things to the House: first, that the final six lines of Section 1(8) of the principal Act do apply to a provisional licence terminated by death, so that a local authority can extend the three months period if the personal representatives need more time to wind up an estate, provided, as the noble Viscount has pointed out to us, that the riding establishment is up to standard.
Secondly, the noble Viscount pointed out that a well-run establishment provisionally licensed can simply be relicensed for someone else following the death of the original provisional licence holder. Therefore it seems that for an annual licence the situation will remain unchanged in this matter, while in the case of a competent provisionally licensed establishment there is little to fear. So, my Lords, with thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the help which I believe the Home Office have given with the drafting of this Amendment, I should like to support it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should only like to say that I am very pleased that agreement has been reached between the noble Viscount and the noble Lord. I am glad to have been able to facilitate this and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LIGHT AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY AND THE BEAGLE COMPANY
4.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep concern over the present position of the Beagle Aircraft Company and the effect that this may have on the future of the British light aircraft industry. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am raising this Question to-day on the future of the British light aircraft industry for two specific reasons. The first is because only three months ago the industry appeared, after ten years of fairly steady investment, to be on the threshold of a break-through into a rapidly expanding world market; and to-day 90 per cent. of that same industry lies, I submit, in a rather shattered state after the tragic and humiliating collapse of the Beagle Aircraft Company. Those of us who care about this industry and its future I believe are now entitled to ask the Government for more information on this matter, without in any way prejudicing any negotiations the liquidator of the company may be having.
The second reason, really springing from the first, is to ask Her Majesty's Government to state clearly what are their short and long term policies for the industry and what place they see it having in future in competing for world markets. Perhaps I may add a personal note that in having the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, to answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government this short debate I believe we are somewhat privileged, for I have never yet heard him give anything but a most thorough and forthright reply. I hope to-day he will be able to keep up this fine record.
In tracing back the recent history of the light aircraft industry, I believe it is fair to say that the most recent policy of the Government stems directly from the recommendations of the Plowden Report. The House will recall that the Plowden Committee, in its wisdom, considered that the light aircraft industry had a very good future, and indeed said, in paragraph 389:
"The market is buoyant, the sums at risk in development are not excessive, and lower wage rates should give British manufacturers a marked initial advantage in costs over their American competitors."
In paragraph 391, however, the Report warns:
"We do not believe that rewards from participation in light aircraft manufacture will be easily won."
I think now, looking back over the troubles, that that was a somewhat prophetic warning.
Later the Report went on to say, in paragraph 392:
"The Committee heard evidence that the most successful American light aircraft firms were those offering a wide range of products and that several others with only isolated types of aircraft had been in difficulties. This suggests that if Britain is to succeed in this field a well-balanced programme will be needed."
Finally, in the same Report, paragraph 394 went on to say:
"Though the sums needed to launch a light aircraft are small compared with those required to launch large airliners, we doubt if the necessary funds can be raised wholly in the private market at the present time. We recommend therefore that, in suitable cases, a measure of Government financial assistance should be given towards the production costs, as well as towards the launching costs, of promising light aircraft."
I think these are the three points that really are the guidelines under the Plow-den Report; namely, that the future is good, although markets will be hard fought, the industry must be well balanced; and that Government support will be required in addition to private investment.
The advice given by the Plowden Committee was supported at that time by what they saw of the world market. In 1964 the world market requirement was some 10,000 aircraft with a sales value of over £100 million a year. The Report went on to add that this market was growing at a rate of 8 per cent. a year. If my arithmetic is correct, this would now appear to bring the world market requirement up to £150 million a year, with perhaps sales of approximately 13,000 aircraft, a market, I would suggest, that no Government, however they list their priorities, would abandon lightly. Perhaps when the noble Lord comes to reply he could confirm the present estimate of the world market requirement.
When one talks of the British light aircraft industry—and here I am not counting the executive jet aircraft—I believe that we are really dealing with

1309
four companies in the field. In order of size, there was the Beagle Aircraft Company, carrying virtually the entire field of the smaller 2, 4 and 6 seater range aircraft. Then there was, and is, the highly successful Britten-Norman Islander, an 8 to 10 passenger aircraft, which I know my noble friend Lord Bessborough will be mentioning. Then there is Shorts, building the Skyvan, and lastly Rollason, building the Condor.
The Beagle Aircraft Company, the House will recall, was created by Pressed Steel in 1960 and arose largely out of an amalgamation from the old Auster Company and the Miles Company. Up to the time the company was taken over by the Government, in August, 1966, I am advised, some £3 million of private investment had been placed in it. That investment had allowed the Beagle Company to design four types of aircraft, and so one might say one saw the beginning of a family of light aircraft; and it is perhaps interesting to look back to see that by 1963 the company had won orders for 357 aircraft, over 60 per cent. of which were for export.
The history of the company since tins Government acquired it in August, 1966, is, of course, already very well known. Parliament was asked finally to approve the purchase of the company in September, 1968, under the Industrial Expansion Act. At that time we were informed that the anticipated total Government investment in the company, up to the breakeven stage in 1972, would be approximately £6 million. Over the next 12 months the company appeared to be realising much of what the Plowden Re-port had forecast. Its Pup and Bulldog aircraft were proving particularly attractive to the market. Orders had been won for some 58 Bulldog aircraft for the Swedish Air Force, delivery starting in mid-1970. The Zambian and Kenyan Governments had already placed orders, and a backlog of some 350 aircraft had built up. Production had risen to one aircraft per working day, and the company was employing approximately 1,080 people.
But, as we all know, despite this apparent success of the company, built up over 9½ years of steady investment, created from a small team and built into over 1,000 employees, the Minister
1310
announced in another place on December 2 that he was placing the company in liquidation. He further announced that the estimated public investment lost in this company amounted to approximately £6 million, but that he was in no way sorry that the Government had made this effort to bring the industry back to its feet. It was, of course, the same Minister who had recommended and persuaded another place to back his judgment in buying the company only 14 months earlier. One could ask why has this happened and why the Government took this step. Was it because the company had asked for a further £6 million to be spread over five years—that is, less than £1 million a year—and the Government considered that there was not sufficient priority to justify this investment? I hope we shall discover more information to-day.
Those briefly, as I see it, are the facts as we read them. There are, I believe, so many important aspects of this affair arising out of the tragic collapse of Beagle, a few of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, that I wish to ask him to-day, that I believe there is an overwhelming case for a public inquiry into this matter. I hope the noble Lord will be able to announce this afternoon the setting up of such an inquiry.
The first question I should like to put to the noble Lord concerns the manner in which the Minister of Technology put the company into liquidation, in what was apparently such a panicstricken measure, when such action was bound to prejudice the public funds invested in the company and was bound to lead to damage to the sale value of the Beagle Aircraft Company. What has clearly happened now and has transpired is that any would-be purchaser of this company has decided, and possibly rightly, to hold off for the moment and to come only when the time is ripe for negotiation on virtually the deathbed of this company, when Beagle has been reduced by redundancy to its knees.
The second aspect I should like to ask the noble Lord about is the very un-pleasant situation in which Her Majesty's Government have placed the 1,080 employees. So far as we read, the redundancy notices have now been sent out to approximately 40 per cent. of the staff,

1311
and perhaps the noble Lord could give us the up-to-date figure on this when he comes to reply. Would the noble Lord also say something about the matter raised in another place on January 27 about the enhanced redundancy payments or the ex gratia payments to the employees? Perhaps the noble Lord could advise us what these ex gratia payments will amount to in cash to each employee.
The third aspect is the very serious question of where the creditors of the company stand. When this matter was raised in another place in the debate on January 27, the Government gave what I believe to be a most curious answer:
"The Government have received representations from a number of creditors of the company which raise a number of issues which are still the subject of legal advice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) 27/1/70, col. 1252.]
Perhaps to-day the noble Lord can unveil to us what this legal advice amounts to, and tell us simply whether or not the present Government intend to honour to every penny any credit debt incurred by the company.
The list of creditors to a certain degree is formidable. I am informed, for instance, that the creditors include the Swedish Government, the Zambian Government and the Kenyan Government, all of whom placed large deposits, in the region I understand of over £200,000, for proposed orders. Among British sup-pliers to the company, I personally have knowledge of one company which was forced to issue a writ against the Beagle Aircraft Company last autumn before it went into liquidation. That company subsequently withdrew its writ on the promise of partial payment, which it received. On the strength of that payment, that small company delivered goods to the value of over £2,000 one day before the Beagle Aircraft Company went into liquidation. That small company is I believe a creditor to-day for over £6,000. I submit that that is not a very happy commentary on the way the Beagle Aircraft Company has conducted its affairs. The fourth aspect of the collapse of the Beagle Company that crosses one's mind, and strongly, is, how do the Government intend to make certain that proper facilities are made available for future spares and support for the aircraft already sold? Again I should be grateful if the noble Lord would deal with that aspect.
The fifth point I would put to the noble Lord is, in a sense, a technical question on the lease at Shoreham. It was a little surprising to be informed that since the Government took over the company a large hanger at Shoreham was built, at a cost to the company of £125,000. Now the hanger technically belongs to the landlords at Shoreham, because the existing lease of the premises to the company expired last October. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can throw more light on this question at the end of the debate and can advise us whether that hanger is an asset of the company. But perhaps the most import-ant information that we wish to have is on what progress the liquidator is making to date on the negotiations over the sale of the company, and what likelihood can he hold out that a British consortium will come forward to take it over.
Out of this whole tragic affair two disturbing features particularly spring to mind. The first is the lack of confidence that must reside in foreign purchasers, for here, unfortunately, is another example of a British aircraft company can-celling on the point of delivery to a foreign customer an aircraft which that customer, as in the case of the Swedish Government, has settled upon only after the most searching examination, and no doubt at some cost. I fear that such action will have the most damaging repercussions on the future confidence and good will of foreign customers, particularly Government customers.
The second point that appears to emerge is the attitude over the past years of the Royal Air Force towards the industry. The House will recall that the Plowden Report recommended—here again I quote:
"We consider, too, that the Services should be encouraged to buy British Light Aircraft wherever possible."
The record of the Royal Air Force over recent years has, I consider, been lamentable. Only back in 1963, I believe, did they place a small, a reduced, order for Bassets. In fact, it was left to the Swedish Air Force to lead the way by placing a large order for the Bulldog trainer. Why the Royal Air Force could not themselves have placed an order for the Bulldog trainer to replace the Chipmunks, even some few months ago when it might have assisted the company, remains one of the

1313
disturbing mysteries. Another example was quoted only the other day. The Royal Air Force are apparently to refurbish their old Pembroke aircraft at a cost of £25,000 per aircraft, rather than purchase the Britten-Norman Islander at £10,000 more. I suggest that such a decision must demonstrate to the industry a distinct lack of support.
My Lords, I apologise for taking some time on what I believe to be a most important subject. Out of all the sorry story of Beagle there is one person deeply involved who apparently regards himself as untarnished. I have in mind the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Technology. It was he who, two years ago, asked another place to support his judgment in purchasing Beagle. That same right honourable gentleman 18 months later returned to another place and unashamedly announced the failure of his judgment and that this failure would probably cost over £6 million of public money; and he appears to have no regrets.
Such apparent arrogance and such a total disregard for what used to be known as "Ministerial responsibility" has, I believe, never before been displayed on such a scale by any Minister of the Crown. Yet this same Minister on April 25, 1968, publicly scolded, castigated and removed from all Government appointments two directors of the Bristol Siddeley Aircraft Company because of their positions of responsibility to that company. In my submission it is the weakest of defences for this Minister of the Crown now to say that although the Government owned the company, and although it comes under his Ministry, he left it entirely to others to manage, and for that reason disclaims responsibility. I believe, in all earnestness, that the Minister has a duty to review his position in this unhappy situation. Finally, may I say that I am in no way imputing any blame to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, who of course, both in this House and in the industry, is held in the highest regard.
4.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that my noble friend was quite right to put down this Question this afternoon. There has been considerable concern in the country about the future
1314
of the light aircraft industry, ever since the Government decided in December last that they were not able to justify the investment of further public funds in Beagle. I am not going to speak at length; my noble friend has given us the history. But what, above all, I should like now to know from the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, is this: Is there still a chance of rescuing the company? Are any companies in this country or overseas—say, Piper in America, or Messerschmidt in Germany—really interested? I have heard several rumours.
As your Lordships know, I have in principle always thought that in this shrinking world it was sensible to establish multinational companies, either European, West or East, Anglo-American or both. It always seems to me that if you have partners in other countries the prospect of marketing your product in them is much more promising. We know, of course, that the French are already manufacturing the Jodel aircraft successfully, and I dare say they do not need any further partners, but I shall be interested to know whether the noble Lord can say anything about the possibility of forming a multinational company to support Beagle. The Parliamentary Secretary in another place on January 27 said that the Government had been having discussions with prospective purchasers. Can the noble Lord give us any further information as to who they are?
Like my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I am much concerned about the redundancies and treatment of employees and former employees of the company. I was particularly struck by the fact that in the debate in another place at the end of last month it was a responsible trade unionist who criticised the Government most strongly, declaring that a company wholly owned by the Government was one for which they must accept a greater measure of responsibility. In my view it is clearly not possible to accept from Government, as sole owners of a company, lower standards of behaviour with regard to redundancies than might obtain in private enterprise. I hope that the noble Lord can repeat the assurances on this matter given by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, and also tell us now whether all the claims are being met.

1315
No one would wish employees of a Government-owned company to be treated in a cavalier way, but if some figures I have seen are correct, the Government's behaviour could well be described, as it has been, as disgraceful and a betrayal of those who put their trust in them. It must have come as a peculiar shock to the noble Lord, himself a much respected former trade unionist, to hear the sort of criticism a trade unionist has made about the Government's handling of this affair.
But the responsibility for all this, as my noble friend has indicated, lies firmly with the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister of Technology. He it was who decided to take over the company—and in saying this, I am in no way blaming or criticising the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. He only recently accepted responsibility for these matters, and I know from a number of conversations that he has been giving sympathetic and conscientious consideration to the matter. Indeed, I have heard recently some very nice things about the noble Lord—and I am glad to say this here—from those closely concerned. I am sorry, deeply sorry, for more than one reason, as the noble Lord will guess, that I cannot say the same about his right honourable friend.
I have been struck by one particular point: that Jodel, in France, have only 120 workers and yet produced 200 light aircraft similar to Beagle, while Beagle itself was employing upwards of 1,000 workers, as my noble friend has said, and has not yet, I think, produced many more than 100 aircraft. Surely that must be another example of extraordinary mismanagement for which in this case I fear the Government must be held responsible. To put it mildly—and this may be an interesting example of British understatement on my part—it can hardly be said that nationalisation of the company has improved the efficiency of management. There has indeed been a terrible management muddle here, and I do not see how the Government can disclaim responsibility.
However, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question: am I right in thinking that if the necessary £6 million were raised it would enable Beagle not only to develop a wider product range and new designs, as the noble Lord said in his
1316
statement in the House before Christmas, but would also help Beagle to meet the heavy debts which have been incurred and which have already been mentioned by my noble friend? I believe that one creditor firm, at least, believe that for the first time in a long life they have incurred a considerable bad debt. Can the noble Lord tell me what the present liabilities of the company stand at, and whether those debts are to be met?
I agree with my noble friend that there should be an investigation of this affair. For instance, how was it decided to sell an aircraft at £5,000 when it costs £6,000 to produce? We must have a fuller explanation than has so far been given. It is indeed staggering that only 18 months after taking on the company the Minister of Technology should say that he had decided that it was not worth taking it further from a commercial point of view. My mind, like the minds of some of my honourable friends, boggles at the ineptitude of the original cashflow forecast.
Above all, I think it extraordinary that the Government should have given so little time to would-be purchasers—I think only a week—io try to raise the necessary funds elsewhere after the Government had decided to pull out. They ought to have given more time to the company to make alternative arrangements rather than put in the receiver so rapidly and peremptorily. I would also ask the noble Lord whether he can give the Government's reasons for disbanding Beagle at a time when, as my noble friend has said, development of the Bulldog trainer version of the Pup was within a few months of completion. There is, I believe, a known requirement by the R.A.F., who will need within a year or two an estimated 250 trainers of this type to replace the Chipmunk. There is a similar requirement in other Air Forces overseas. The Swedes, as we known from my noble friend, have already placed a substantial order for this aircraft, and other countries have, too.
This kind of faintheartedness is doing the industry—other firms, not only Beagle —great harm. Only yesterday the sales department of one firm told me that they had a substantial prospective customer cross-questioning them. He had previously purchased a Beagle and thought he was

1317
being left with an orphan to look after, because no after-sales service could be guaranteed. It is clearly essential for the success of all British aircraft that after-sales support should be exemplary. If he could not get this service, this customer said, "Then to hell with British aircraft!" Some may hold the view that the Government decision is similar to that taken by the Ministry of Defence in not replacing the Pembroke by the Britten Norman Islander. I do not think there is a complete parallel between the two cases, but both decisions may well prove to have been short-sighted and likely to reflect on British trade in general.
At this late hour, the eleventh hour maybe, in the fate of Beagle, a narration of the long history of the affair would be fruitless. We all know that the Plowden Report felt that the manufacture of light aircraft ought to be well suited to the aptitudes and resources of British industry. I would agree with them. They may well have been right, and that is borne out by the success which aircraft manufactured by Beagle and others have enjoyed in a number of export markets. The liquidation of the company is certainly a blow to the British light aircraft industry. I am glad, however, that there are at least two other firms, Britten Norman of the Isle of Wight, who build the Islander, as my noble friend has told us, and the smaller Rollason Aircraft of Croydon, who build the Condor, and I am glad that it is believed that they should continue to be successful, even if Beagle cannot be saved.
Like my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I am much impressed by Britten Norman's record. They have delivered, I believe, 130 Islanders—100 abroad— and are busily completing orders at a rate of 10 to 12 per month. As your Lordships know, this aircraft is a short take-off, 10-seater aircraft, ideal for taxi or commuter services. It can be seen in the Orkneys and the Channel Islands, and I gather there are now ten in use in New Guinea. Your Lordships may remember that it was a New Guinea-owned Islander which won the recent England to Australia air race. The firm appear to be flourishing. At all events, it seems that they have sold £10 million-worth of aircraft since they were founded in 1954. They employ only 250, sub-
1318
contracting much of the work to the British Hovercraft Corporation. In so far as links with Europe are concerned, I was happy to learn today of their arrangement with Rumania who, I gather, are themselves building Islanders now at the rate of one a week. I understand that the company are trying to establish co-operative marketing links with Rumania as well as with other countries in Eastern Europe and, I hope, India. This is good news, and I am certainly much impressed by what they are doing.
Rollason Aircraft seem to be another example of a small firm who are doing well. Their Condor is originally French-designed, but considerably modified. It is all-wood as opposed to all-steel. It is about the Beagle's size, and ideal for training purposes. I believe that they have sold over 36 of these aircraft in the last five years and are now producing at the rate of one a month, for lease as well as for sale. I understand that they also build a single-seater, the Turbulent, costing only £1,500, of which they have sold 30. It is comforting to learn that some firms in the light aircraft industry are keeping their heads above water. I hope they will continue to do so and not be taken over by the Government. Government should help them, but not take them over or nationalise them. Let these firms themselves forge their own links with Europe or elsewhere overseas.
But, to go back to Beagle itself. I only hope that with the noble Lord taking charge—and we all have great respect for him—there may be a last-minute satisfactory outcome. That is why I end as I began, by asking him the direct question: is there a chance of rescuing the company?
5.2 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, during the brief discussion that took place when the Statement on the Beagle Aircraft Company was made in your Lordships' House, the Minister made reference to the possibility of a White Paper, or a fuller Statement, to tell us what progress had been' made with regard to this Company. That was on December 2 last year. We are now nearing the end of February and, with the exception of a report that I received this afternoon of a reply made in another place, which I do not think takes us very much further (it says merely that the Government are

1319
now considering the disposal of the business and closure of the company, and that they accept the company's liabilities in full), we have had nothing from the Government. So we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for giving us the opportunity of discussing the matter by putting down this Unstarred Question this afternoon.
Your Lordships will remember that the Statement described how the Beagle Company came to find itself in further difficulties after the Government had made an investment in it. As I understand it, the real difficulty and crisis arose after the board of directors had come to the conclusion that unless the company could undertake the development of new types of light aircraft, with particular reference to a twin-engined type, there was little hope of its being able to break into the all-important American market. This particular reference to a twin-engined aircraft refers I think, to the company's inability to compete successfully with the Cessna aircraft, which I am told is most efficient, and, what is most important, to the fact that the Americans can produce more cheaply than anything the British manufacturer has so far been able to build in this category.
The board then estimated that to carry out this new development the company would need a further £6 million, in addition to that already subscribed by the Government, to provide the appropriate working capital. But £6 million is a great deal of anybody's money, and the fact that it happens to be public money does not make it any less. At that time, I understand in the light of other fiscal retrenchments, the Government said, "No." A receiver was appointed who was also to act as manager. What some of us may find it a little difficult to understand, is why this situation calling for the production of new types had not apparently been realised, or, if it had, had not been properly costed before the Government made their original investment. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say something about this rather disturbing circumstance.
In the Statement it was said that at that time there had been, and were, encouraging signs that other interested parties, both in this country and in Europe, and indeed in America, might come forward
1320
with the necessary finance to provide for this new development and to put the Beagle company on a viable basis. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made reference to this, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us if any of these hopes have matured or will be likely to mature. In our discussion on December 2, both the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and I asked whether full exploraton had been made of possible additional markets in Europe, Australia and Africa, apart from the American market. Perhaps the Minister can tell us, also, whether the receiver, in his capacity of manager, has been able to extend the hope of new markets in the meantime.
I have been told that at the time of appointing the receiver the company had a considerable number of aircraft in its possession, completed and ready for sale. It would be interesting to know whether any of these have been disposed of in the meantime, and how many aircraft the company has which are halfway towards completion for sale. Here I reiterate something which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, when he mentioned the back-up of spare parts. As your Lord-ships know, no purchaser will consider buying an aircraft unless he can be reasonably assured that there will be spares available for at least the major life of the aircraft. Can we be told what is the present position with regard to these three aspects?
Last, but by no means least, I come to the question of staff. In reply to a Question which I put on December 2, I was told that there were then some 580 staff at Shoreham-on-Sea and a further 500 at Reasby, near Leicester. Has there been any change in the number since that time? With regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said about treatment, I have been credibly informed that the company has always acted in the best traditions of a model employer in its relations with its staff, and has done so in full consultation with the trade unions concerned. I am sure your Lordships will be happy to know whether the Minister can confirm this.
If the worst comes to the worst—(and it rather looks from the Statement that we may be coming to the worst), and no further financial help is coming, either from commercial interests or from the Government—and perhaps the Minister

1321
could say whether the Government have changed their mind, or are likely to do so, on this matter—it seems that there will be nothing for it but to wind up the company, seek reemployment for its staff and dispose of its assets. I should like to ask whether, in the event of that happening, it will mean that this country no longer has an important stake in the light aircraft construction business; and, secondly, will it not cause consider-able official concern about the resulting adverse impact on our exports and, in turn, on the balance of payments?
5.9 p.m.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, I must apologise for not putting my name down to speak, but I was not sure whether I should be able to be here. Before going any further, I must state that I have a slight interest in light aviation as I am a director of an aerial spraying company. Our biggest problem was that we had to buy foreign-made light aircraft, since the industry in this country, which was once a big pioneer in this field, now finds itself on the brink of disaster. We had to buy American aircraft as there was no comparable aircraft made in this country. In addition to buying these machines, we had to pay a vast import duty and we also had to pay 7s. 2d to 7s. 6d. a gallon for light aircraft fuel. I should like to ask two questions of the noble Lord who will be replying for the Government, and I have given him proper notice of them.
The first is whether in the near future we may see a reduction in, or a cancellation of, this import duty. If that is not possible over the whole field of light aircraft, would it be possible to lift the duty in the case of the eight or so companies who use these aircraft, which are specialised and can be used only for the one purpose, and which the companies need for their livelihood? Secondly, may we see a reduction in the tax on light aircraft fuel? If not, could there be a dispensation for these eight or so companies? Finally, as the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, has said, the Government should help the light aircraft industry which, as I have mentioned, was one of the pioneers in this field.
5.11 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down,
1322
I must apologise for not putting my name on the list of speakers to-day. I was not certain whether I would be able to get here in time. I would also apologise to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for not being in my place when he rose to ask his Question. I am going to speak only very briefly and say that, like all noble Lords, I greatly regret the situation which has now arisen in respect of Beagle Aircraft. But I would also say how glad I was to read the Answer to the Question in another place which tells us that the creditors are to be paid in full, because this was a matter which was causing the very gravest concern, particularly in relation to the sort of case that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull described.
My Lords, there comes a time in the development of every company when one has to decide whether or not one should inject further capital, and that decision is particularly difficult when the company might not be at that time profitable— and this was apparently the situation in the case of Beagle. When the directors came to the Government for the additional £6 million, the company was not at that time profitable. But the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Technology took the decision that additional Government money should not be subscribed to this company. Frankly, I believe that that was the wrong decision. It showed only one thing: that the judgment of the right honourable gentleman is defective—and this, perhaps, is not the first example of that. However, that is now the situation, and the company is to be wound up. That is a decision which all of us regret, but the decision having been taken not to inject further capital, it must have been inevitable. Like other noble Lords, I would thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for asking this Question, and say how much I, too, regret this untimely end to the British light aircraft industry.
5.13 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I, too, apologise for rising without having given prior notice? The Question which the noble Earl has put down for us to discuss is an important one, but I think that we are in grave danger of confusing issues. There are, to my mind, three different matters here: one is the question of the aircraft industry; the second is the viability of a particular

1323
firm; and the third one, which (if he will allow me so to call him) my noble friend Lord Bessborough brought in, is the issue of nationalisation. So far as I am aware, this must have been dragged in by its hind leg, because I do not think the firm was nationalised. Nevertheless, any stick is useful for beating a dog you do not like.
I think that the trouble we have been faced with for many years with the aircraft industry is that it can live only with heavy Government support; yet at the same time it demands the right to be regarded as an entirely independent industry, to be run by all the principles of private enterprise, which it flouts. Now this is a very difficult thing. You cannot, on the one hand, demand that your industry should be entirely free from all Government control, that no Minister should be allowed to come along and say that you are not to have more money or that you are not to have more orders, and at the same time demand that you should have very heavy Government subsidies. It is unfortunate that these things do not go together; and I am surprised that anyone should suggest that one can have both these things at the same time
With regard to this particular firm, I have no knowledge of it at all, but I think it is pretty clear that we have not succeeded over the whole range in being able to produce light aircraft in competition with the Americans. We may say that we can produce a particular machine which is technically excellent. The history of our aircraft industry is one of technical excellence and economic catastrophe. It is because we have been able to do things well—and as a scientist I naturally take pride in the technological achievements of the aircraft industry, but I am appalled at their economic mismanagement. I think that really we are faced with this situation. It is no good saying, when something technically excellent has been produced but its production has been mismanaged, that for national reasons, for reasons of pride in our technology, we should shovel more money into it in order to have the satisfaction of saying, "Look at what a beautiful thing we have produced". My Lords, I am not an industrialist, I am not an economist. As a mere scientist, I am shocked at the lack of commercial and economic sense which is being displayed.
5.18 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the questions which have been put by the noble Earl and by other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate arise from the natural questioning and from the widely-shared disappointment at the situation which has arisen in respect of the development of Beagle Aircraft. Perhaps I may briefly recall the background. The Government became involved in Beagle Aircraft substantially as a rescue operation. In early 1966 the Pressed Steel Company, who were then the owners of Beagle, informed the Government that they proposed to cease the operations of the company. The Government wished to preserve a stake for the United Kingdom in the expanding world market for light aircraft, and they agreed in June, 1966, that they would purchase the assets of the company as soon as statutory authority could be obtained for so doing.
In making this decision in 1966, the Government were of course influenced by the Report of the Plowden Committee which in 1965 recommended that the manufacture of light aircraft in the United Kingdom merited Government help. The Committee then took the view that such help should be limited, that the industry's progress towards self-sufficiency should be reviewed from time to time, and that if the objective of self-sufficiency was not being approached within a few years the case for continuing assistance would be open to question. I think it is well to recall those aspects of the Plowden Committee's view of the subject.
From 1966 the Beagle Company was kept going by grants from the Government on a no-profit no-loss basis for Pressed Steel. During that period the advances totalled some £3·3 million; and the company was acquired in 1968 under the authority of the Industrial Expansion Act of that year. Since 1968 the needs of the company for working capital have been provided by the Government in the form of interest-bearing loans, but I should say that the interest payments on these were deferred until March, 1971, and they have not been a factor in the company's present financial position.
As was recognised by the Plowden Committee and has been recognised by

1325
noble Lords who spoke this evening, any light aviation industry outside the North American continent is subject to strong competition from an American industry which has the advantage of a large home market. I was asked about estimates of the world market for light aircraft. They vary as such estimates tend to do, but a reasonable figure for the total demand over the next five years for light aircraft is upwards of 100,000 aircraft of which more than 80 per cent. will arise in the United States. The American domestic market for light aircraft dominates the scene and it is not surprising therefore that American manufacturers dominate the Western World in respect of production. Any firm outside North America is in competition with American firms offering a family of aircraft. The production of such a family allows the manufacturer to offer the smallest aircraft at tempting prices, at low-profit margins, with the expectation that customers will in due course buy the larger and more profitable aircraft.
The problem that Beagle has been faced with therefore has been basically one of scale of operation. It is difficult to get the sales required for profitable operation without a significant pentration of the American market. A significant penetration requires technical quality backed by competitive prices; but price in its turn depends to no small extent on the scale of production. This is clearly therefore a considerable commercial problem attended with a great deal of commercial risk.
In the autumn of 1969 the board of Beagle came to the conclusion that if the company was to obtain a commercially viable future a wider product range, including new designs of twin-engined aircraft, would have to be developed and sold. This programme, as they put it to the Government, would have required at least £6 million of new capital —I emphasise "new capital"—over the next four years, and probably more later, to build on the foundations which would by then have been laid. This put the anticipated breakeven point for the company three years further away than had previously been expected; and I think that it is fair to say that the plan was to a large extent based upon an aircraft which had not yet come into production
1326
and upon other aircraft which had not yet been designed.
As I told the House on December 2 last, the Government, after careful examination of this position, regretfully have had to come to the conclusion that having regard to the need to contain Government expenditure there was not sufficient priority attaching to this to justify the investment of further public funds in Beagle on the scale that was envisaged. This was a decision which the Government felt bound to reach in view of the many competing demands upon national resources. Since the appointment in December of the receiver and manager, and the statement to which I have referred, a number of tentative discussions have been held—and I was asked about this—with a number of parties, some from the United Kingdom, some from overseas, on the basis of the possible purchase of the undertaking as a going concern.
The Government held themselves ready to join such talks at any time and I have myself had an opportunity 0to have discussions with some of the prospective purchasers. In response to the inquiry that has been made, let me say that I am still ready for discussions with any who have expressed an interest and who have not so far indicated a possibility of withdrawal of that interest. I should have been particularly glad to discuss any scheme which might have linked Beagle with one of the existing British companies in the aviation field; but no concrete proposals have been put to me which appeared to provide a basis for such discussions.
I must make it quite clear that what the Government could not contemplate, in the light of their other commitments, which include commitments to the aviation industry and to industry generally, is a scheme whereby the Government themselves continued to bear the predominant share of the financing of the company.
Some possibilities do remain, but un-fortunately in each case the prospects have not so far led to the putting forward of a viable scheme. A point has been reached at which the Government have not felt able to guarantee further funds to keep the company going, and this has left the receiver with no alternative but

1327
to issue redundancy notices on a considerable scale and run down the business. I have been asked to give figures. The situation is that prior to the appointment of the receiver the company employed 580 people, men and women, at Reasby and 500 at Shoreham. Notice has been given to all but half-a-dozen or so at Reasby and to all but about 280 at Shoreham.
May I turn to the questions which have been put to me about the position of the creditors and of the staff? This after-noon my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology, in a Written Answer in another place, made a statement about the position of the creditors, in the following terms:
"The unique circumstances of Beagle's acquisition by Her Majesty's Government and its present position have led the Government, after considering all the aspects of this matter, to decide to meet the company's liabilities in full. It is accordingly proposed to liquidate the company by a members' voluntary winding-up."
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked whether I could give a figure for the outstanding liabilities of the company. That is not easy to do. There is the question of contingent liabilities, the question of possible realisation of the assets and the proceeds from whatever the receiver and manager is able to do. But the known net liabilities are of the order of £1 million.
I should like to say a brief word about the position of the staff, because throughout the establishment of Beagle the management has received first-rate sup-port from the employees of the company. The receiver and manager had no funds available to make payments to redundant staff and no responsibility to meet their former entitlements; although, of course, all workers who become redundant are assured of their statutory entitlement under the Redundancy Payments scheme. But the Government have made it clear that they wish the employees of Beagle to be treated as they would be by any good commercial employer, and have asked the receiver and manager, on the Government's behalf and not in his capacity as receiver, to carry out discussions with the employees' representatives with a view to settling satisfactory severance terms. Apart from their entitlement under the Redundancy Payments Act, the Government have
1328
assured all employees that under the Contracts of Employment Act they will receive their full entitlement to payment in lieu of notice to them where it would arise. To avoid hardship where employees—because, for example, of the shortness of their service—would fall out-side the terms of that Act, we have-agreed that they should be given a minimum of one week's notice or pay in lieu.
Further, I understand that entitlements to holiday pay have been accepted by the receiver as a preferential charge and will be met. Individual service contracts will be honoured. The Government have recognised that some outside employers, when faced with a redundancy situation, have arranged to make severance payments to their workers in addition to those to which they are statutorily entitled under the Redundancy Payments Act. A sum of money has accordingly been authorised—it is upwards of £30,000— which will leave a margin to permit some sum to be distributed among the workers and staff as additional severance payments. I understand that broad agreement has been reached on the method of distributing such sum, but that consideration of the adequacy of the sum itself is still proceeding. That is the position at the moment.
Perhaps I should add a brief word about the superannuation fund. As a result of changes which were taking place at the time the receiver and manager was appointed, arrangements with the life assurance companies broke down, and Her Majesty's Government accordingly made arrangements with those companies to ensure that valid claims would continue to be met. I understand that these funds cover both production workers and clerical staff. I have been asked a number of questions on specific points. I was asked about the new hanger at Shoreham and its present value to the company. I do not think that noble Lords would press me to discuss details of the valuation of the assets of the company while negotiations are still going on between the receiver and interested parties concerning their disposal.
I have been asked about the servicing of existing aircraft, and we recognise the importance of this point. It is for the time being a matter for the receiver and manager, and I would say that it is not unreasonable to expect that the rights

1329
to manufacture spares and so forth for existing aircraft will be taken over by some other company. In the case of the R.A.F. Bassets, about which this point has been raised in some quarters, the principle applies as in the case of civil aircraft, and certainly spares and support services will be required by the Bassets for some considerable time. I understand that the receiver and manager is having discussions with a number of companies in this connection and is hopeful that the matter will be settled without undue delay.
Now, my Lords, we turn to the question of the future of the light aviation industry to which the noble Earl directed attention in asking his Question. Beagle is not, and has not been, the whole of the British light aviation industry, and the future manufacture of light aviation depends, of course, upon the initiative and the abilities of the manufacturers themselves. The Plowden Report put emphasis, rather in the way that noble Lords have done, and as I did earlier, on the importance of America in the world light aircraft market. It pointed out that British aircraft need to be more attractive than the competing aircraft, in design, performance and price, if our manufacturers are to regain the remunerative share of the market; and these considerations set out by Plowden still remain valid. It has been the policy of successive Governments since 1960 to give assistance with launching costs for promising civil airframes and engines when it has not been possible to obtain finance from market sources. I am always ready to consider any proposal that the aircraft industry may wish to put to me.
The Britten-Norman Islander, to which reference has been made by the noble Earl, and the Handley Page Jetstream are two of the light aircraft which have been assisted in this way, and financial assistance has also been provided by the Government to Short Brothers and Harland in connection with Skyvan. Normally the maximum assistance given is 50 per cent. of the launching costs, which is recoverable to the Government by a levy on sales; and before assistance is given the Government must be satisfied about the reasonable commercial viability of the project.
1330
Reference was made (I think by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull) to the contracts with Sweden, Zambia and Kenya. We have been at pains to keep the Swedish Government, which has the largest of these contracts, fully informed of the position, and I understand that in the case of the Swedish Government repayment of the deposit which they had made is guaranteed under arrangements made by the company's bank. The question has been put whether there should not be an inquiry into the position of the Beagle Company. This is a suggestion which the Government will note as having been raised in this debate; but I am bound to say that at present I cannot see what inquiry would be justified, or what would be gained by an inquiry that will not be secured by the normal processes of Parliament.
In raising the Question in the first place, the noble Earl thought it proper to refer very sharply to the position of my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology, and so did the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I am not sure what the line of criticism was: whether they were criticising him for having taken the course of extending assistance to Beagle in the first place, or for having withdrawn that support in the light of the arguments and considerations and recognition of priorities that I have tried to explain; or whether it was criticism for having recognised, in what was found to be a controversial decision open to criticism, that, for the reasons I have tried to set out, the continuance of support in the form in which it was sought could not be justified in the light of other priorities to which the Government have to have regard. I think we all know that in politics and in Government many difficult decisions have to be made. I can assure noble Lords that this has been a difficult decision for all of us who have participated in it.
Very naturally, we deeply regret the disappointment and inconvenience caused to many by the failure of the company. We recognise too, very fully, the effort and the enthusiasm which many contributed to the Beagle Aircraft Company, and the Government did not reach this decision without great regret. We do not, however, believe that it was wrong to seek to extend this measure of assistance to the light aircraft industry, and again, in the light of the facts as they

1331
have developed and as I have tried to set them before noble Lords, we feel that the course which has been taken has been the right one.

BASINGSTOKE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  CONCESSIONARY FACILITIES AND SERVICE STANDARDS
  CONCESSIONARY FACILITIES AND SERVICE STANDARDS