Sitting of 6 December 1971

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

    Airports (Night Flying)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the programme of night flying at Luton Airport for 1972; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The proposed programme for 1972 will be finally determined by Luton Corporation after considering the views of the airport consultative committee. I have already announced my intention to consider more stringent restrictions at Gatwick, Luton and Manchester on and from the summer of 1973.
    Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the situation in Hertfordshire, where we are at the end of our tether over the intense noise caused by even the existing level of flights at Luton Airport? Since in the past Luton has never taken the slightest notice of the airport consultative committee's views on night flying, does my right hon. Friend feel it is likely that the Luton authorities will take any notice this time, or will they merely go ahead and increase night flying, as they have already announced they intend to do?
    Mr. Noble: I am not unaware of these problems and, if I were, it would not be the fault of my hon. Friend, who brings them to my attention two or three times a week. The suggested night flying is
    908
    below the level of last year and I hope that this may give some relief.
    Mr. Madel: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the whole question of night flying and noise around Luton and other south-eastern airports will not be resolved until Foulness is operational? Will he do everything in his power to accelerate the construction programme for Foulness?
    Mr. Noble: I agree partly with what my hon. Friend says, but I believe some steps can be taken to help those suffering from noise at night, as we have done at Heathrow, and I hope we may be able to do so in other areas before Foulness is operational. We cannot hope to solve the problem altogether.
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to prohibit take-offs by jet aircraft from East Midlands Airport between the hours of 23.30 and 06.00 between 1st April and 31st October, 1972, and thereafter, with provision for exemption in exceptional individual cases where hardship might arise.
    Mr. Noble: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 29th November, 1971.—[Vol. 827, c. 8–9.]
    Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the easement which has been given to the neighbours of Heathrow and Gatwick Airports, is it not unsatisfactory that people in the East Midlands should still suffer this abominable noise at night? Does the Minister look upon the people of the East Midlands as second-class citizens regarding sleep at night?
    Mr. Noble: No. The hon. Gentleman will have studied the reply which I gave, which was that the local authorities responsible for both the aerodromes and the people living around them are the people who, in my view, are responsible for seeing that a proper balance is kept between the needs of the area for air services and the difficulty of noise at night, which is infinitely less than in the areas which he mentioned.
    Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the East Midlands Airport is developing rapidly, that it is still at a less

    909
    developed stage than Luton and that the problem will, therefore, be more serious in future unless firm measures are taken now?
    Mr. Noble: Firm measures can be taken at the request of the local authorities as soon as they see that a problem is developing. We have power to do this, but it is not necessary at the moment.
    Mr. Buchan: This is a general question. Surely it is not correct simply to say that under pressure from local authorities there will be a change. In the case of Glasgow Airport there has been pressure from immediate local authorities concerned, but the flights continue. This is, therefore, not only a matter concerning Heathrow or the East Midlands; it is a general problem affecting all airports in Britain and the same principle should apply to them all.
    Mr. Noble: The same principle applies to them all. The only point where there is a difference is in the designation of airports. We have specifically said that this would take place where noise was a serious problem. If Glasgow, Luton or any other local authority or consultative body asks for this to be taken into account, we will do it.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the effects of his decision to ban night jet take-offs from London Heathrow Airport in the summer season of 1972 upon the number of landings.
    Mr. Noble: I expect the ban on takeoffs to reduce significantly the aggregate of 3,500 summer night arrivals and departures hitherto permitted. The precise extent of the deterrent effect on landings by most airlines will not emerge until they have completed the extensive rescheduling which they must now make.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people warmly welcome his courageous decision to ban night takeoffs at Heathrow during the coming summer season? Is he also aware that many people are also concerned about the noise from landings? Would he continue to look at ways of reducing this nuisance?
    Mr. Noble: We will continue to look at the possibility of reducing the nuisance
    910
    in any way possible. As my hon. Friend knows, however, landings are more difficult. I believe that we will reduce the number of landings simply by the action which we have already taken.
    Mr. Bishop: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that the manufacturers are doing all they can technically to reduce noise and nuisance, and that the Government's support for this in incentives and technical aid will bring about the desired degree of lowering of nuisance in future?
    Mr. Noble: I am not satisfied with any of these things, but that is another question.

    U.S.S.R. (Trade)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the total exports and imports, respectively, between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for 1969–70; and what steps he is taking to increase the total level of trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the next five years.
    Mr. Noble: In 1969 our imports from the U.S.S.R. were £1962 million and our exports £95·5 million. In 1970 the comparable figures were £210·5 million and £102–4 million. Expansion of this trade is largely a matter for British industry, but full support is provided by the Department and by our embassy in Moscow.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged for that reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States is now a strong competitor with ourselves, Japan and West Germany for Soviet trade, that recently the United States Secretary of Commerce was in Moscow and that large numbers of American businessmen have suddenly realised the great potential for increasing trade with the Soviet Union? Therefore, does he not feel it would be a good idea for his right hon. Friend to go to the Soviet Union to try to heal the breach created by his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, so that we can develop our trade with the Soviet Union during the next few years?
    Mr. Noble: Soviet authorities have often told us that their purchasing decisions are taken simply on commercial considerations, and I am certain that that is so. I know that, when the time is

    911
    proper, my right hon. Friend looks forward to visiting Moscow in order to increase our trade, which is what we all desire.

    Integrated Circuits (Research)
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional financial assistance he intends to make available to British firms engaged in research on integrated circuits.
    The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I do not think that financial assistance by the Government is necessarily the solution to all the complex problems involved. However, I have had discussions with some of the firms concerned and am willing to consider any proposals they may wish to make for support for projects related to the application of integrated circuits.
    Mr. Stoddart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that not unhelpful answer. I hope he will bear in mind what he was told by the Plessey Company during his recent visit to my constituency and will also remember that the £5 million support given by the N.R.D.C. in 1969 for this sort of research is due to expire in 1972 and then has to be repaid on a 3 per cent. basis regardless of profits. Will he also bear in mind that the United States and Europe are ploughing great sums of money into the micro-electronics industry? Will he ensure that our own industry does not die?
    Mr. Corfield: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have all those factors and many others in mind.

    Footwear Imports (Undeveloped Countries)
    Dr. Suttafordasked the Secretary of State for trade and industry what changes he intends to make in regard to the importation of shoes and other footwear from undeveloped countries.
    Mr. Noble: In an order laid before the House on 26th November, footwear and virtually all other industrial goods other than most textiles are to be admitted free of duty from the developing countries listed as from 1st January, 1972.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the footwear industry is the major employer of skilled manual labour in Norwich, an area which, because of
    912
    its high level of male unemployment, higher than the national average in all England, let alone southern England, and because it has the lowest wage rates in the country, cannot be expected to undertake this form of foreign aid? Is he also aware that the local president of the footwear manufacturers has today predicted widespread unemployment in the area if these orders are not annulled?
    Mr. Noble: I had the opportunity of meeting representatives of the footwear industry last week. I was able to explain to them the safeguards which we have instituted and they seemed to be considerably reassured. There will be an opportunity to debate the matter later this week.

    Origin Marking (Wool Textiles)
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on his initiatives to restore origin marking on wool textile products.
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making with his consideration of the application by the wool textile industry for origin marking orders under Section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act. 1968.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): As a first step, my hon. Friend has discussed with representatives of the wool textile delegation the possible need for stronger general safeguards against the consumer being misled into believing that imported goods are British.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for that reply. Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Conservative Party, at any rate, believes in maximising consumer choice and discrimination? Will he therefore do his best to ensure that a Private Member's Bill on this subject, which the Government are supporting, will be brought forward as much as possible?
    Mr. Davies: I can certainly give that assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) has a Private Member's Bill on the subject and, as has been said, the Government are anxious to support it.
    Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure the House that the full resources of his Department will be made available to help that Bill, which is of such importance that it should receive help beyond that normally expected for a Private Member's Bill?
    Mr. Davies: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that every help will be given. I am as anxious as he is to see the Bill succeed.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: What safeguards may be introduced by the Department against possible damage in the interval between now and the Bill's becoming law?
    Mr. Davies: I will give thought to any proposals on that subject, but effectively the situation does not arise until 1st January next year and it is possible that steps will have been taken between now and then to alleviate the situation.

    Oil and Natural Gas (Exploration)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for oil and natural gas exploration on land he has granted in the last two years to British and overseas oil companies, respectively.
    The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): Forty-six land licences have been granted since 1st December, 1969, three to United Kingdom companies and 43 to the United Kingdom subsidiaries of overseas companies.
    Mr. Digby: On balance of payments considerations, could more preference be given to really British companies?
    Sir J. Eden: That is not what governs the apportionment of licences in this sector. It depends on an applicant coming forward. Generally speaking, in appropriate circumstances, those who apply get a licence.
    Mr. Dalyell: On the criteria governing selection, what consideration is given to job-creating industries on the Scottish East Coast?
    Sir J. Eden: Exploration licences do not of themselves lead to many jobs. We are here concerned with a fairly limited exercise of locating and then developing resources of hydrocarbon oils.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister saying that no consideration is given?
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the progress of exploration for oil in the North Sea so far this year.
    Sir J. Eden: Progress has been very encouraging and three significant oil discoveries have been confirmed this year in the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf. Twenty-four exploration wells have been or are being drilled in northern waters since January.
    Mr. Lane: Does my hon. Friend agree that these successes, which are largely to the credit of private enterprise, will be particularly valuable in any consideration of energy policy after we join the Common Market?
    Sir J. Eden: Yes. They are extremely relevant to the consideration of our energy policy whatever the circumstances. These discoveries are proving to be quite significant and will take on increasing importance.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: In the last supplementary question the Common Market was mentioned. Is it not the case now that the Minister may, if he so desires, ban imports of coal but that when we get into the Common Market he will not have power to ban imports of coal even if he wishes to do so?
    Sir J. Eden: That is another question.

    Consumer Protection (Packaged Goods)
    Miss J. Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will include in the proposed Bill extending consumer protection, provisions standardising the weights of packaged goods, especially foodstuffs and toilet requisites.
    Mr. John Davies: I already have powers, under the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, to require prepackaged goods to be sold in standardised prescribed quantities. A wide range of foodstuffs has to be sold in this way and I can extend the control to cover other foodstuffs, or other goods such as toilet requisites, if it should seem to me to be desirable and practicable to do so.
    Miss Fookes: May I illustrate the point? I have two bottles of shampoo. Can my right hon. Friend tell me, off the cuff, whether this bottle at 12p for 45 grammes would be better value in terms of money than this bottle at 15p for 67 c.c.?
    Mr. Davies: The odour seems to have a part to play in this.

    Concorde
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the Concorde.
    Mr. Corfield: The programme continues to make satisfactory progress.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most disquieting features of the whole exercise has been the incredible delay in coming to a decision while millions are spent producing Concordes which may subsequently not be given the go-ahead? Would he answer three short questions? First, what is the latest estimate of the cost of developing Concorde? Secondly, how much money has yet to be spent on development? Thirdly, what are the number of aircraft required to be made to produce the break-even figure on manufacturing costs alone, not including development?
    Mr. Corfield: I am not at all clear what the hon. Gentleman means by referring to any delay in reaching a decision. The latest estimate of the cost, which I have given to the House, is £885 million in toto. That has not been altered, although I shall certainly not guarantee that it will not be. So far as I recollect, just under £400 million has been spent. The break-even figure depends on the price set: it is, therefore, not yet possible to calculate it.
    Mr. McLaren: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it would greatly help the success of the Concorde project if there were an early and satisfactory settlement of the industrial dispute at Rolls-Royce, Patchway?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Could it now be widely publicised that Concorde is one of the
    916
    quietest productions which aviation has ever created?
    Mr. Corfield: There is a later Question on publicity, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman and publicity is being given to that.
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he can now state when he expects the manufacturers to receive the first firm orders for Concorde.
    Mr. Corfield: The manufacturers hope to receive the first firm orders in the first part of 1972.
    Mr. Grylls: Can my right hon. Friend say when B.O.A.C. will be in a position to place a firm order? Is he also aware that those of us who enthusiastically support the Concorde project would prefer a voluntary order from B.O.A.C. to any wing twisting or subsidising?
    Mr. Corfield: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I assure him that B.O.A.C. is in no way delaying progress but, like any other customer, is assessing how best it can fit this aircraft into its route patterns.
    Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there are likely to be further authorisations for long-dated items for Concorde to be produced by B.A.C. and Sud in advance of the orders he expects in the early part of next year?
    Mr. Corfield: This matter has to be considered jointly with the French. At the moment there is no urgent need for further authorisations. It will be a matter for consultation between me and my French colleagues.
    Mr. Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many jobs are directly dependent upon the continuance of the Concorde programme in this country?
    Mr. Corfield: Directly dependent, about 26,000.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what sum the claim has been made for damage to St. David's Cathedral by Concorde's sonic boom; and whether it has been settled.
    Mr. Corfield: No such claim has been received.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will the Minister look at the open letter in The Guardian today which is signed by a large number of distinguished people and hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he also look again at the whole question of whether Concorde really is in the national interest? Will he review the whole issue and come before the House with a full report?
    Mr. Corfield: That is another question. This matter has been looked at and the answer is that we believe that it is in the national interest.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now seek to encourage all Government organs for which he is responsible to advertise and promote Concorde.
    Mr. Corfield: Concorde already receives a great deal of publicity.

    Electricity Supply Industry (Redundancies)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion his Department is now having with the Central Electricity Generating Board as to future redundancies in the electricity supply industry.
    Sir J. Eden: This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Electricity Council, but I have no reason to believe the industry has a serious redundancy problem.
    Mr. Cox: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the deep concern now being expressed by many men in the industry about their job security. In view of the widespread unemployment in the country, is it not the job of the Minister to engage in discussions with men who have loyally served the industry and who find themselves being made redundant only to see contract labour taking over their former jobs shortly afterwards?
    Sir J. Eden: These are serious matters. But they are primarily matters for the managements in the industry.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Under the previous Administration, were there not frequent consultations on these matters? Cer-
    918
    tainly when there is redundancy such as this, when unemployment is growing rapidly in so many parts of the country, should not the Government themselves make some effort in the matter?
    Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman must surely know that redundancy problems may be ventilated through the national joint negotiating machinery which exists for the purpose.

    Advance Factory (Hare Law, Co. Durham)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts he is making to find a tenant for the advance factory which is standing empty at Hare Law, Stanley, County Durham.
    Sir J. Eden: This factory has been suggested to 54 firms, 22 of which have visited it. We shall continue our efforts to find a suitable occupant.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that that answer is as discouraging as the one which I was given to the same Question on 18th January? Is he further aware that unemployment in this area is now 8½ per cent. and that there is a desperate urgency for jobs to be provided not only in this empty factory but in many other factories in the North-East?
    Sir J. Eden: I am well aware of the urgency of the situation. That is why we are pressing ahead as hard as we can with this matter. The hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to know that 29 of the suggestions and 12 of the visits, respectively, have taken place since 1st July, 1970. We remain hopeful that real interest will be shown in occupancy.

    Wigan (Industry)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in view of closures of factories in the Wigan area, what plans he has to bring new industries there.
    Sir J. Eden: I am glad to note that there has been a small fall in the unemployment rate in Wigan over the last two to three months. I am confident that Wigan will share in the faster economic growth and greater employment

    919
    which the Government's policies are designed to achieve.
    Mr. Fitch: Yes, indeed. But is the Minister aware of the continuing contraction of the textile and engineering industries in Wigan? Cannot we have a more hopeful reply?
    Sir J. Eden: I can conceive of little more hopeful than the clear affirmation of the Government's determination to see that their policy leads to higher employment.

    Air Corporations (Non-Smoking Accommodation)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will issue general directions to British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation requiring them to ensure that adequate accommodation is provided in all their aircraft for nonsmokers.
    Mr. Noble: No, Sir. This is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the two airlines.
    Mr. Pavitt: As the American airlines are making very good advertising copy out of the fact that they give privacy for consenting adults who wish to smoke in private so to do, will the Minister change his mind about B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.?
    Mr. Noble: It may at least help the hon. Gentleman to know that B.O.A.C. intends to help consenting adults in this sphere by setting aside one quarter of the seats on each aircraft for non-smokers. B.E.A. finds greater difficulty in this regard. Because of the short nature of its flights, it would take a great deal more time for booking-in and B.E.A. has therefore not yet decided to follow B.O.A.C.'s example.

    Textile Mills, Lancashire
    Mr. H. Boardmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many textile mills were operating in Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley in 1961 compared with the number in operation in November, 1971; and what were the number of operatives at those dates.
    Sir J. Eden: At the beginning of 1961 there were 20 mills in the Leigh district employing 8,269 operatives. At the end of
    920
    September, 1971, there were 12 mills. The latest available employment figures for June, 1971, show 3,917 operatives at work in textile mills in the Leigh district.
    Mr. Boardman: Does the Minister agree that those figures, coupled with the figures associated with pit closures, present a serious threat to the future of this area? Will he now give serious consideration to the textile industry's plea that a low level of quotas should run alongside the proposed tariffs?
    Sir J. Eden: I recognise absolutely that the present level of unemployment is unacceptably high. That is why special measures have been taken to stimulate output, investment and employment throughout the country. Leigh, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is in a good position to benefit from these measures. On the second part of his supplementary question, I hope that the House will shortly have an opportunity to discuss the matter.
    Sir R. Cary: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the fringes of the Manchester area the closing of mills at the places named in the Question and at important townships like Bolton is most serious? Therefore, the area will welcome the statement just made by his right hon. Friend about continuing the marking-up clause on goods imported into this country.
    Sir J. Eden: I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend has said. However, he will also know that it had been anticipated that there would be a period during which some of the mills in the textile industry would progressively close down, strengthening the competitive position of the industry as a whole.
    Mr. Benn: Are we to take it from the Minister's answers to this and an earlier Question that the Government have no further measures in mind to deal with unemployment? Is he resting solely on his expectation that existing measures will be sufficient?
    Sir J. Eden: We must give the existing measures a chance to work through, as there is evidence that they are doing.

    Special Development Areas
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

    921
    what plans he has to designate further areas for special development area status.
    Mr. John Davies: I have at present nothing to add to what I told the House in the debate on the Address.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment figures in areas outside the S.D.A.s are in many instances worse than they are inside the S.D.A.s? Will he therefore look at that criterion with a view to extending the special incentives given to areas within the special development areas?
    Mr. Davies: Yes; I am kept in day-to-day touch with the statistics involved and with the facts. The hon. Gentleman will realise that extending the areas tends to dilute the incentive, which is a serious problem. Equally, too frequent changes in the deployment of regional incentives causes confusion. The need is to try to keep a balance of mind on the problem and seek to get the best possible arrangement.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that areas like Merseyside ought now to be special development areas? We now have 53,000 unemployed—7 per cent. of the working population and over 11 per cent. of the male population. Is it not clear that development area status itself is not sufficient and that we need to go further to endeavour to get to grips with this very serious problem?
    Mr. Davies: This is a matter of judgment. I am closely in touch with the position in the North-West generally and on Merseyside in particular. I still take the view that the prospects for Merseyside are more attractive, perhaps, than those in some of the worst hit areas, such as the North-East and Central Scotland.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Without extending the special development areas, could not my right hon. Friend greatly assist employment in areas like the West of Scotland if he would extend to home firms considering expansion the same S.D.A. facilities which are available to incoming firms?
    Mr. Davies: I am very well aware of the strong pressure exercised by my hon. Friend to bring this about, but it must be remembered that these measures were devised specifically to overcome the clear
    922
    handicap which incoming firms must overcome in arriving for the first time in a new area. The benefit to be gained from any extension of those facilities to existing firms must be compared with the cost of so doing.
    Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the dilution of measures. Is he aware that in manufacturing investment his Government have been responsible for a certain amount of dilution? Will he answer this specific question on S.D.A.s? He must have this information in his notes. How many new jobs have been created since the new areas were designated in February of this year—that is, specifically related to the new designation?
    Mr. Davies: It would have to be a very much more precise question before it could be answered. I am unclear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to West-Central Scotland or to the wide field of special development areas. I will certainly answer a specific question if he cares to table one.

    Metrication (White Paper)
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now give a date for publication of the White Paper on metrication which was promised to the House on 27th October, 1970.
    Mr. John Davies: I am not able at the moment to add to what my hon. Friend told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on 8th November.—[Vol. 825, c. 50.]
    Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the country is getting into a fearful muddle about this White Paper? All sorts of things have happened since the previous Government set up the Metrication Board, which has been showing nothing but arrogance and forcing metrication down people's throats. Cannot the present Government do something to bring some sense into the situation and not force metrication upon us?
    Mr. Davies: I am very conscious of the country's anxiety, very ably expressed by my hon. Friend, to have clarification. I hope not to disappoint people when it comes.

    Textile Quota System
    Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now take action to prevent the textile quota system ending on 31st December, 1971; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Davies: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) on Friday, 3rd December.
    Mr. Barnett: Although I should have preferred any statement to have been made in the House, I welcomed the reports over the weekend that the Government are changing their policy and are retaining the quota system. Will the Secretary of State stand firm against the pressure which he will be under from abroad and not only retain the system but retain it at a lower level, because at the present level we are still importing 55 per cent. of home consumption? Will he advise overseas countries concerned that their best interests will be served by their trying to persuade Europe and the United States to take more textiles rather than to kill the Lancashire textile industry?
    Mr. Davies: I take due note of what the hon. Gentleman says; I saw the speculation over the weekend, but at this stage it is speculation only.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that when, in 1969, the Textile Council advised on this point, it advised that there should be an overlap and that the quotas should continue for some years while the tariffs were put on? In the reconsideration of this policy will my right hon. Friend go back to that very sound advice?
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that. This is one of the elements which it is absolutely necessary to take into account in any thinking which is now given to the matter.
    Mr. Lamond: Has the Secretary of State any plans to hold discussions with other countries in the E.E.C. about quotas in future?
    Mr. Davies: The question of the adaptation of our own arrangements to membership of the Community is a
    924
    matter which will be subject to discussion with the Community and with the Commission. This is already being undertaken in an exploratory sense, though no issue of this kind arises specifically in relation to the negotiations.

    Development Areas (Industrial Investment)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will authorise the acceleration of the purchasing programmes of public authorities and nationalised industries so as to encourage industrial development, especially in the North-East and other development areas.
    Mr. John Davies: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace gave the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 29th November.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome such orders as have been placed, but is the Secretary of State aware that this is only a drop in the bucket as against the enormous tide of redundancies we now face, with male unemployment being over 15 per cent. in my constituency? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to a special emergency conference of all authorities responsible in this matter to take account of a limited number of practical proposals which we are prepared to put forward?
    Mr. Davies: I am constantly in consultation with the chairmen of the nationalised industries on issues of this kind and will continue to be so. I think the hon. Gentleman recognises that already the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in bringing forward about £185 million worth of projects are not negligible.
    Dame Irene Ward: Surely my right hon. Friend can give, and is entitled to give, a much better answer. Cannot he tell hon. Members opposite of all the amount of money that is being poured into the area? Can he discover what advantage the local authorities are taking of the opportunities that have been offered to them? May I say with all the power at my command that the North-East Coast is a jolly nicer part of the country than the North-West?
    Mr. Davies: Without wishing to enter into any purely local competition with my hon. Friend, I can say that the measures which have been announced are very considerable.
    Dame Irene Ward: Announce them again.
    Mr. Davies: Certainly. They amount to about £1,400 million of tax remission in a full tax year, £200 million of capital works and housing improvement grants, £70 million-plus of naval shipbuilding orders, £185 million of advanced capital works and nationalised industry programmes, and so on.
    Mr. Leadbitter: After that catalogue of announcements which the Secretary of State has hurriedly pushed forward, will he bear in mind that the situation in the development areas, and in the North-East in particular, is critical? It is in that sense that he must answer the House. Will he bear in mind that all the forecasts for industrial investment next year are no higher than the present levels? The industrial investment programmes of the nationalised industries could be looked at again so that the supplier industries to the nationalised industries can be encouraged to improve their investment programmes. Therefore, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that in the case of my constituency, where for every 70 men and boys out of work there is only one vacancy and where the unemployment figure is 12½ per cent., his answers must reflect the seriousness of the situation?
    Mr. Davies: I should like to feel that my answers have reflected the seriousness of the situation. One of my answers quite clearly concerns the hon. Gentleman's part of the world and has benefited it.

    European Economic Community
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Tobacco Advisory Committee about the implications for tobacco growing in the United Kingdom of the existing European Economic Community regulations on tobacco leaf, should the United Kingdom join the Common Market.
    Sir J. Eden: None, Sir. Tobacco is not grown commercially in the United Kingdom for use in products for smoking and this situation is unlikely to change.
    Dr. Gilbert: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us something of the discussions now going on between the Commission and the tobacco growing interests in France and Italy with respect to the future pattern of taxation on tobacco products? Would he bear in mind that if the Common Market pattern is introduced over here, it is likely to raise the price of cigar and pipe smoking relative to the cost of cigarettes, with all the implications which that would have for the National Health Service and for cancer?
    Sir J. Eden: These general discussions will cover the overall implications for the industry of our entry to the E.E.C., including, of course, the implication of the regulations on raw tobacco.

    Sunderland (Employment)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to provide employment opportunities in Sunderland.
    Sir J. Eden: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22nd November and to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the employment debate on 23rd November.—[Vol. 826, c. 258.]
    Mr. Willey: That is totally unsatisfactory. Is the Minister aware that everyone in Sunderland is absolutely fed up with the Government's indifference to their special and particular problems? When will we receive replies to the representations which were made a considerable time ago?
    Sir J. Eden: There is absolutely no indifference whatsoever—very much the reverse. Between January and 29th November, 1971, Sunderland was suggested or shown to 57 firms from outside the region inquiring about prospects in the Northern Region and it is hoped that a number of these inquiries will give rise to firm projects. We are persisting as hard as we can in encouraging industrialists to have regard to the advantages of Sunderland.
    Mr. Bean: But is it not a fact that in cases like this and that referred to in

    927
    an earlier Question about unused advance factories, the absence of investment grants and the phasing out of the R.E.P. makes a substantial difference to the judgment of firms which might otherwise wish to move their work and plant into the area?
    Sir J. Eden: There are three empty Department of Trade and Industry advance factories and some small terrace units in the Sunderland area. The main factor militating against investment decisions is still a lack of confidence in bringing forward some of those decisions. This is rapidly being put right by a recognition that we have laid the foundation for sustained economic growth.
    Mr. Bagier: Would not the Minister accept that there is a definite difference between the interests of companies because of the removal of investment grants? Would not he and the Government try something new? Would they, for example, carry out a survey among Sunderland industry to discover whether existing industry, if offered the same grants as are offered for incoming industry, would expand and help solve our own problems?
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir, I do not accept that that is a factor at all. There is a vast amount of competition among development and special development areas and a great deal of encouragement can also be given by the local authorities concerned. It is certainly being done in the case of Sunderland, to whose help and initiative in this regard I pay tribute.

    Industrial Expansion (Scotland)
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and other organisations offering suggestions designed to promote the expansion of industry in Scotland; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. John Davies: I have had proposals relating to most aspects of our measures to promote the development of industry in Scotland, and I have undertaken to consider them carefully.
    Mr. Ewing: Has the Secretary of State now replied to the Scottish Trades Union Congress after many weeks? Is the length of time which he is taking to reply an
    928
    indication that he intends to implement some, if not all, of the proposals contained in that submission by the S.T.U.C.?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, I had my meeting with the S.T.U.C. at the very end of September and I have been looking at this, coupled with the suggestions of a number of other bodies from Scotland as well in the intervening period. My hope at the moment is to be able to pay a visit to Scotland, to Glasgow again, towards the end of this month, before Christmas—perhaps on 22nd December—to carry these discussions forward.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scottish trade unions are concerned at the fact that whenever the nationalised industries consider reorganisation, this seems inevitably to result in the closure of offices, factories and workshops in Scotland? Would he keep closely in touch with the heads of the nationalised industries to ensure that Scotland's interests are not neglected?
    Mr. Davies: I have always made it clear that to the degree that the Government are concerned with the activities of the nationalised industries, questions of regional policy figure very strongly in that consultation, and they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Benn: How far has the right hon. Gentleman got in his consideration of the Clydeside Development Authority, put before him by the T.U.C. and supported by the Scottish T.U.C.?
    Mr. Davies: This is indeed one of the issues which the S.T.U.C. has underlined in the proposals put previously by the T.U.C. It was a matter for discussion when the T.U.C. visited my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This matter is, like the others that I have mentioned, under careful consideration.

    Electricity Supply
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied about the security of electricity supply nationally during the next six months; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir J. Eden: I am advised by the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board that unless abnormal

    929
    weather conditions coincide with exceptional plant breakdowns, capacity should be sufficient to meet demand.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he go a little further and tell us that we can now put power cuts behind us? Can he tell the House whether we have now conquered the problems which affect the large generating sets and the summer maintenance programme, which have led to power cuts in the past?
    Sir J. Eden: I cannot give the complete assurance for which my hon. Friend asks. But it is certainly the aim of the contemplated measures to keep any cuts to the minimum. The C.E.G.B. has undertaken a large maintenance programme during the summer with the aim of increasing availability this winter, and the performance of its 500 megawatt units has shown continuous improvement.

    Public Companies (Inquiries)
    Mr. Restasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the public companies into which his Department has conducted an inquiry under Section 165 of the Companies Act since it was enacted in 1948; and which reports resulting from such an inquiry, where application to appoint inspectors has come from the company's board and shareholders after the passing of a special resolution, have not been made public.
    Sir J. Eden: In answer to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) on 18th October. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "None".—[Vol. 823, c. 30–1.]
    Mr. Rost: Does not that answer confirm that if the Department's inquiry into Rolls-Royce is not made public, it will create a precedent? In view of the conflict of evidence which has recently been given to the Select Committee by different directors of Rolls-Royce, will not the anxiety and uncertainty in the public mind be aggravated unless this report is made public?
    Sir J. Eden: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says in the light of the report when it is available. But
    930
    the practice of publishing such information was stopped in order to avoid unfavourable publicity for particular companies when the circumstances might not then have justified it.

    Bankruptcies
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have gone into bankruptcy in 1971.
    Sir J. Eden: The number of receiving orders and orders of administration made in England and Wales from January to October, 1971, was 3,822 and the number of compulsory and creditors' voluntary liquidations of companies in the same period was 2,868.
    Mr. Price: What happened to the confidence which was supposed to flow into industry as a result of a Tory Government?
    Sir J. Eden rose—
    Mr. Price: The speed with which the Minister rises to answer my supplementary question means that he has what he considers to be a good answer ready.
    Is it not clear that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have proved to be a disaster both to their own supporters and to ours? Is it not apparent that the appointment of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to look after small businesses is the ultimate insult?
    Sir J. Eden: I would have said that the hon. Gentleman had his supplementary question ready before he heard my answer. In any event, the reduction in numbers this year is associated with improved profitability and easier credit conditions.
    Mr. Normanton: Would my hon. Friend agree that smaller firms suffered far more than large public companies as a result of five or six years of Socialist Administration?
    Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is right. Most of the businesses which failed were small, and for such businesses the risk of failure appears to have been lower this year than last year.

    Older Miners (Redundancy Scheme)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to improve the over-55s redundancy scheme as it applies to the mining industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir J. Eden: I have consulted both sides of the industry and I shall shortly be introducing a Statutory Instrument embodying my proposals for changes in the scheme that will apply to men becoming redundant between March, 1972, and March, 1974.
    Mr. Skinner: Does that mean that this is a two-year rather than a three-year scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman remember that the unions have been pressing for an extension so that people may get redundancy pay until they reach the age of 65 or until they find a job, whichever is the sooner, though they are not likely to achieve the latter? Before the hon. Gentleman finalises his answer, perhaps I can make a proposal—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Skinner: I was just getting round to that, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to send this matter to the Select Committee on the Civil List so that these redundant miners can get the same sort of treatment as the Duke of Gloucester?
    Sir J. Eden: The original scheme covered men becoming redundant between July, 1967, and March, 1971. The 1971 Act empowers my right hon. Friend to make similar schemes covering redundancies occurring before March, 1974, and that is the limit on the period. As for the details, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await the announcement. The orders will, of course, be subject to debate and affirmative Resolution in both Houses.

    North-West Kent
    Mr. Trewasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what surveys he has carried out on the decline of traditional industries in North-West Kent.
    Sir J. Eden: No special survey is necessary as the Department keeps in close touch with individual industries both
    932
    nationally and through the regional offices.
    Mr. Trew: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of local fears that unless new industry is allowed into the area, North-West Kent could increasingly become a dormitory area surrounded by derelict land? Will he give this matter his urgent consideration?
    Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently met a deputation from Kent, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) was a member. The Under-Secretary found it extremely helpful to have those discussions.

    Capital Equipment (Sales to U.S.A.)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total disadvantage in sterling terms that a piece of British capital equipment costing £1,000 has to bear which is sold to the United States of America, after taking into account the import surcharge, the investment tax credit and the revaluation of sterling, since 15th August of this year.
    Mr. Noble: There are different ways of calculating the true cost of an industrial asset and various tax options are open to an American purchaser. But on a fair calculation, the factors to which my hon. Friend refers make the net cost of the British equipment over £160 more than the net cost of the alternative American equipment. This gives the latter a price preference of over 25 per cent.
    Mr. Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very high level of discrimination against British capital goods and carries with it a threat of even higher unemployment? Will he consider going to Washington next week with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it clear to the American Government that if there is a realignment of parities, there must also be a withdrawal by the American Government not only of the 10 per cent. import surcharge, but of the "buy American" tax credit?
    Mr. Noble: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have regarded this particular part of the package as particularly

    933
    offensive and entirely contrary to the American obligation to G.A.T.T. We have missed no opportunity of making this absolutely clear to our American colleagues. I do not think there is any particular need for me to visit the United States next week to reaffirm what I have already said.
    Dr. Gilbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the American authorities the considerable anomaly in their position in that while they protest that they are most concerned about imports from Japan, the overwhelming proportion of which are in consumer goods, the two countries whose imports into America are most hit by the restriction are this country and West Germany?
    Mr. Noble: This point has certainly not escaped our notice and we have mentioned it on many occasions to our American colleagues.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the remarks he has made in the United States on this subject, may I ask him to consider, if the United States persists with this flagrant violation of the rules of G.A.T.T., drawing the attention of the American authorities to the possibility that the present position might redound greatly to the advantage of British capital goods manufacturers if the goods of American manufacturers were excluded from our investment allowance arrangements?
    Mr. Noble: There is, of course, always at times like this the temptation to play one off against the other. We think that this particular aspect of the American package will be short-lived. If it is, there is everything to be said for our trying to prevent a trade war starting rather than increasing it, and everything we are doing at the moment is aimed in that direction.

    Steel Industry (Scotland)
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals for the expansion and development of the Scottish steel industry are contained in the long-term investment plans submitted to him by the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. John Davies: The content of the investment programme is a matter between the British Steel Corporation and myself, but my current review of the corporation's plans and prospects will take account of regional considerations.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mention was made in the annual report of the British Steel Corporation of a plan for a green-field site as part of the programme? Is he aware that it would be a tremendous boost to morale in the whole of the West of Scotland if approval were given to such a major new development in this area; and when can we expect his decision in the matter?
    Mr. Davies: I appreciate that, and I have told the House that I am hoping to have the report of the Joint Steering Group in my hands before the end of the year. I shall obviously wish to process it very quickly when I get it.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that steel production goes on in my constituency? Will he ask the British Steel Corporation to deal expeditiously with its investment policy and pass its proposals to him for his approval or otherwise? Is he aware of the great fear and perturbation in the West of Scotland lest the Government will rat on the decision that has already in essence been taken by the corporation? Finally, may we be assured that the Scottish steel industry, which is vital to the economy, will not be left by the wayside when the decisions are made?
    Mr. Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman the very fullest assurance that there is certainly no discrimination against Scotland in mind. He will be aware that the British Steel Corporation is very much a party to the inquiry that is now taking place.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the grave concern that exists in other parts of the country in which the steel industry is located, including South Yorkshire, where there have been redundancies at Samuel Fox and other firms? Will he find an opportunity before the Christmas Recess on 22nd December to make an interim statement on the expansion prospects of

    935
    the industry in view of the reassurance that the people who work in the industry now badly need?
    Mr. Davies: It would seem that I can only usefully make a statement at the point in time when I have something useful to communicate, and I am unlikely to be in that position before Christmas.

PUBLIC HOUSE, BELFAST (EXPLOSION)
Mr. McMaster(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the explosion at McGurk's public house on North Queen Street, Belfast, on Saturday night 4th December.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I have been asked to reply.
At about 8.30 p.m. on Saturday, 4th December, an explosion which occurred without warning wrecked McGurk's Bar, 81–83 North Queen Street, Belfast. It killed 15 people and injured 13 others, two seriously. Army ammunition technical officers have estimated the weight of explosive at about 50 lbs. The security forces have not yet been able to establish precisely where the bomb was placed.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my horror at this appalling tragedy and my deep sympathy with the victims and their families. I would hope that those involved—in whatever way—in acts of terror will be sobered by what has happened, and will reject the violence and destruction of which this is the latest example.
Mr. McMaster: My hon. Friends from Northern Ireland and I associate ourselves with my noble Friend's expression of sympathy with the relatives and families of those killed and injured. Can my noble Friend say whether the explosion occurred from the inside or the outside of the bar itself?
Lord Balniel: Investigations by Army ammunition technical officers indicate that the bomb was detonated within the structure, probably just inside the bar on the ground floor. I am afraid that I cannot be more positive than that, because hon. Members will have seen on television the
936
extent of the damage and will realise the difficulty of establishing firmer conclusions. But investigations are continuing.
Mr. Callaghan: May I associate those on this side with what the noble Lord has said about this dreadful crime of violence—the worst, I think, since the outbreaks that started in 1969.
May I ask him to assure us, as I am sure is the case, that every step will be taken to bring the miscreants to justice and, whether those steps are successful or not, may I express the hope that those responsible may be able to sleep easily in their beds with their consciences in view of the indescribable destruction, terror and misery that they bring to countless homes?
Lord Balniel: I am sure that the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman are sentiments which are felt by every hon. Member. I can assure him that every effort will be made to bring the miscreants to justice.
Mr. Pounder: In view of this appalling explosion and the disaster and tragedy that have followed, and while realising that at the present time there is a lot of information to be collated, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will assure the House that a statement will be made either here or somewhere else when he is in possession of greater knowledge of what happened?
Lord Balniel: If I feel that a useful purpose can be served by such a statement, I shall be most happy to make it to the House.
Mr. Orme: Is the Minister of State aware that we were appalled when we saw the incident reported on television on Saturday evening? Can he comment on the fact that, already, Mr. John Taylor of the Northern Ireland Government has made the comment that this is the responsibility of one organisation? Has the Minister any information at the present time about who is responsible?
Lord Balniel: Various theories have been advanced as to who is responsible, including the possibility of this being an accidental bomb explosion, but I understand that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are continuing with their investigations, and I have nothing to add to my statement.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The outbreak of hostilities between India and Pakistan is a matter of deep concern to Her Majesty's Government and to all Members of the House. We have watched with growing apprehension over the past months the deterioration in relations between the two countries, stemming from the situation in East Pakistan. Despite our efforts and those of other Powers, India and Pakistan have been driven to the calamity of war. Our immediate concern must now be to try to stop the fighting, and to contribute to a sane and civilised solution that takes account of the wishes of the peoples affected.
When we heard the first reports of attacks and fighting on the borders of India and West Pakistan on 3rd December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appealed to President Yahya Khan and Mrs. Gandhi to do all within their power to prevent the spread of conflict. We are also in touch with other Governments.
Reports on the military situation are confused. It is clear that extensive fighting is taking place within East Pakistan and on the borders of West Pakistan and India, and that the navies and air forces of both countries are engaged. To the extent that it is possible in modern warfare, it appears that the civilian population has not been the object of attack from the air.
The House will know that the Security Council met on 4th December and again yesterday to consider the situation. It was clear from the start that any resolution calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of forces would attract a Russian veto. For their part, Her Majesty's Government have taken the view that there is nothing to be gained by prematurely attempting to introduce abortive resolutions which are bound to be vetoed by one country or another. We are, therefore, doing all we can to look for ways of overcoming these difficulties and of finding a solution to the desperately complicated issues which gave rise to the
938
outbreak of war. These efforts have not so far, in the United Nations, been successful, but we shall continue them. The United Nations must have a rôle to play not only in the search for ways to stop the fighting but also in the immense task of reconstruction that will follow.
There have been no reports of injury to United Kingdom nationals or damage to United Kingdom property in either India or Pakistan, although damage to tea gardens may be inevitable. On 23rd November the High Commissioner at Islamabad advised United Kingdom nationals in the border districts of Pakistan to consider moving to safer areas while this was possible. Since the outbreak of the fighting he has taken account of the air raids, the restrictions on movements and the suspension of civil air flights, and has advised United Kingdom nationals to say where they are. No evacuation from Pakistan or India is contemplated at present. I am, however, keeping the situation under review, and will take any action that is necessary.
War can only be a tragedy for all the people of the sub-continent. We shall do all within our power to persuade those concerned of this view, and of the need to tackle the task of reconciliation.
Mr. Harold Wilson: In thanking the Foreign Secretary for making this statement at the earliest possible opportunity, may I ask whether he is aware that, speaking for myself, I feel that he has the right to expect the backing of the House in what can at this stage be only an interim statement on the Government's position? He is right to say, I suggest to the House—and some of us heard him giving his first reactions on the radio at lunch time yesterday—that no good purpose, least of all hopes of an early ceasefire, would be served by taking a definitive attitude on the political solution that must come or, for that matter, seeking a declaratory resolution which will almost certainly attract a veto from one side or other in the Security Council.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in the view of many of us here, whatever the views which have been or may be taken by hon. Members on both sides about the merits in the dispute, Britain's influence, both with our Commonwealth connections and through our close and intimate relations with the two countries involved, has its best rôle

939
to play by being used with them and with other major Powers, and not by coming to premature decisions about political postures?
With reference to the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the tragedy that it is for these two countries, as he will know—and I know that he shares this feeling—the whole House will be thinking first and foremost of the many millions who have suffered, in a matter of months, successive uprooting from their homes, violence, floods, almost total famine, cholera, latterly the intense cold, and now war. It is of them that we shall be thinking.
The House will welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the fact that up to now there have been no reports about British nationals. No doubt he will take an early opportunity to inform the House if there is any change in that position. It must be a matter for Her Majesty's Government and this country's representatives on the spot to advise whether and when evacuation should be put into effect.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the question of arms supplies, both national and international. He will agree that Britain will have to have a national policy on the matter, but I am sure that he will also agree that for Britain alone to take action might well be meaningless without the agreement of all other major countries to enforce whatever policies can be agreed. Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will make a further early statement and that as soon as he can he will indicate the Government's thinking on the question of an arms embargo?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of a debate should be discussed through the usual channels in this spirit: that the sense of urgency that the whole House feels need not be best measured by the speed with which a debate is mounted, and that we should have the opportunity to hear another statement at least from the right hon. Gentleman, and have some more clarification of the position, before there is any suggestion of a major debate in the House?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentle-
940
man for what he has said. We had better discuss the matter of a debate through the usual channels, and we can keep in close touch on that. I am sure that everyone in the House will wish to have a debate at the right time, but its timing will be important.
I very much agree that when we know in advance that declarations and resolutions in the United Nations will be vetoed it is futile to pursue them. Simple anodyne resolutions will have no affect on the situation on the ground. All that we can do, therefore, is to continue the discussion with those who want to see a peaceful solution and perhaps arrive at the greatest consensus possible.
I will certainly keep the House informed from time to time on the safety of British nationls. When there is the possibility of air attacks on airfields, only the High Commissioners or Deputy High Commissioners can be the judges of what is to be done and at what time.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about arms. Many countries are selling arms to both countries. I should like the opportunity to take the matter up in the United Nations to see whether there can be some kind of international control in the circumstances. I am also reviewing our own policy, as the right hon. Gentleman requested.
Mr. Sandys: Since the continuation of the fighting is bound to result in slaughter and suffering on a calamitous scale, will the right hon. Gentleman bring home to the Russian Government that the whole world deplores any action which results in obstructing progress towards a cease-fire?
Hon. Members: What about the Chinese?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Everyone would like to see a cease-fire and a standstill and then negotiations between the parties for a peace, but it is unfortunately a fact that such resolutions would now be vetoed by one country or another, and we know this in advance. Therefore, we must look for more of a compromise, but it is a very difficult task. Certainly, we are making clear to the Russians our feeling that they should co-operate if it will assist.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House is appalled at the tragedy and shares his view that the worst thing at this stage is to pass judgment?
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions. First, since the present Government and their predecessors have an honourable and generous record of assistance to refugees, will the Government actively consider contingency plans which may come into operation when the need arises and when we can give such aid? Second, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm for the record that no arms are being shipped by the Government to either side at present? Third, is he aware that, since China is in treaty with one of the disputants and Russia with another, and whilst this country has the friendliest relations with both Commonwealth nations, it will very probably be in the Security Council that the initiative must be taken to bring about a cease-fire and that any moves in that direction taken by Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations will have the widest possible support in the House?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As to aid and making contingency plans, we will certainly review the generous intentions that we had, and other countries will have to do so as well. The United States has cut off economic aid, so the whole question will have to be reviewed.
I should like to look into the question of shipments of arms, and I will make another statement to the House later on.
As for the United Kingdom resolution, we are now discussing with our friends whether this is possible in a desire to get the greatest possible consensus in the United Nations and the Security Council. I would rather make a further statement on progress to the House perhaps tomorrow or the next day.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Whilst I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about the danger of trying to do things through the United Nations only to run into a veto, will he do everything he can to ensure that the closest possible co-ordination of policy is arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the United States, not least bearing in mind that there appears to be a division in the Communist world as to which
942
side is in the right or in the wrong, and also bearing in mind that the United States was to some extent involved in the Chinese occupation of Tibet?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We will certainly keep as close as we can to the United States Government in this matter. Various people threaten to operate the veto on any resolution which includes the word "withdrawal"; I have told the right hon. Gentleman that the Russians are among them. A number of countries would like the word "withdrawal" in, and any resolution not containing it would be immediately vetoed by the Chinese. It is a very difficult problem to which to find a solution, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept congratulations on his wisdom in not supporting the United States proposal before the Security Council and also accept that it is facile for the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) to suggest that the continuation of the dispute is the fault of the U.S.S.R.? Does he agree that the failure of the world community to accept the rights of the people of Bangladesh to self-determination is partly to blame for the outbreak of war, and that the sooner the world recognises the right of the 75 million people of East Bengal to have their own State the more likely it is that the conflict will be brought to an end?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot go into the politics of the matter. Our efforts must be concentrated on trying to stop the fighting, and quickly.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: What is the true figure of British nationals evacuated from East Pakistan?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There was a report of the evacuation of 589 British citizens from East Pakistan by ship. The proper number was two.
Mr. Barnes: Is it not the case that any cease-fire and withdrawal of forces which does not leave the way open to a genuine political settlement in East Bengal will achieve nothing? Though it may be harsh to say it, may it not be the case that the interests of the people of East Bengal and of stability in the area will be best served by an Indian military victory in East Bengal?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinion, but I must not comment on that.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend define a little more closely the present status of the matter before the United Nations, as to whether it has been treated as a chapter VI or chapter VII matter? If my right hon. Friend is pessimistic about action in the United Nations because of the veto, does he not think that Britain is uniquely well placed, by reason of her membership of the Commonwealth and of her having refrained from assigning blame or taking sides, to play a part both in conciliation and in an initiative for an embargo on arms?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall certainly wish to play a constructive part in conciliation. We are still searching for that part; as I said, it is not at all easy to find. I said that I will look into the questions of arms supplies—and I must consult other countries about this matter under what chapter any resolution in the because arms are flowing in to both sides from many countries. The question of United Nations might fall depends on the terms of the resolution, and no one has yet arrived at a resolution which is acceptable.
Mr. Bottomley: I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the need for exercising caution in political action, but is it not possible for him to take the lead in co-ordinating and organising a massive aid programme? Unless this is done, millions will die of starvation in the next few months.
Sir A. Douglas-Home: A massive aid programme was, so to speak, planned against the day when there might be famine in East Pakistan. Since then some very serious things have happened—for example, cancellation of the American aid programme. So we shall have to review the matter again from the start. I very much hope, with the right hon. Gentleman, that we shall be able to achieve an aid programme which will meet the difficulties into which this country is likely to fall.
Mr. Tilney: As an international force of some kind will ultimately be required to take up ground between the com-
944
batants or to help in reconstruction, will my right hon. Friend say whether any action can be taken now to ensure that such a force would be immediately ready once the situation was opportune?
Sir A. Douglas-Home: The attempt to organise observers on the frontier of East Pakistan and India has failed and been rejected. I will make inquiries on the question whether a force will be needed to assist when hostilities are over.
Mr. John Mendelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone who has listened direct to the transmissions from the Security Council and heard the highly biased contributions of the Soviet, Chinese and American delegates will warmly support the Government's attitude in refusing to be identified with either side? But does he accept that there is an urgent need to make progress with the arms embargo and that it would be monstrous if Powers preferred to continue to support both sides with arms supplies? Is he aware that it is absolutely essential to ensure, if there is a political solution in East Bengal, that India is told, even at this late stage, that many of her lifelong friends will expect her to stop fighting short of total victory?
Sir A. Douglas-Home: I am so surprised at support from the hon. Gentleman that I am left practically speechless. It is too early to look forward to what the political solution may be. The immediate task must be to try to arrange in the United Nations, and to use the assistance of Commonwealth countries in arranging, a cease-fire, a truce, and then peace talks. But I cannot in honesty disguise from the House the difficulty of it.

THE GULF
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker and that of the House, I will make a statement on the Gulf.
I am glad to tell the House that the United Arab Emirates was formally established last Thursday, 2nd December. The Ruler of Abu Dhabi was sworn in as President. Her Majesty's Government

945
had, on the previous day, terminated their special relationship with the six Emirates who are members of the Union. As previously agreed with the Ruler, Her Majesty's Government also terminated the special relationship with Ras al Khaimah, which had decided not to join the Union.
Also on 2nd December, Her Majesty's Government concluded with the Union a Treaty of Friendship, on the same lines as the Treaties concluded recently with Bahrain and Qatar. We welcome this new relationship. We hope the Union will shortly be accepted into the United Nations. All the military arrangements outlined in my statement to the House on 1st March have been accepted by the Rulers, including the hand-over of the Trucial Oman Scouts to be the nucleus of the Union's Defence Force; the establishment of a military advisory team in Union territory; periodic visits to the area by the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force; and assistance to local police forces as well as in the field of development. The political structure for the Arab shore of the Southern Gulf is now complete.
The House will also be aware that after intensive negotiations, in which Her Majesty's Government have been using their good offices, agreement was reached between Iran and Sharjah over future arrangements for the island of Abu Musa. Under these arrangements neither party has given up its claims nor recognised the sovereignty of the other. Iranian troops will be stationed in an agreed area. Arrangements have been worked out to cover oil operations; and revenues, if oil is found, will be divided equally between Iran and Sharjah. Iran is giving generous financial aid to Sharjah. In implementation of the arrangements for Abu Musa, Iranian troops were welcomed by representatives of the Sharjah Government when they arrived on that island on the morning of 30th November.
The two small islands of the Tunbs have also been the subject of conflicting claims. Her Majesty's Government regret that, despite the efforts which were made through long negotiations, it was not possible to achieve an agreed solution to the problem of the Tunbs also. Iran landed some troops on them on 30th November, and I understand that one
946
Arab policeman and three Iranians were killed. We regret this loss of life.
Once the decision to withdraw our forces from the Gulf and to end our special treaty relationships with the Gulf States was taken, it was inevitable that these long dormant disputes would come into the open. Our aim has therefore been to settle these issues where possible, so that they would not drag on, generating suspicion and hostility in the future. The Iranian claim to Bahrain was resolved in May, 1970. The past months have seen the emergence of Bahrain and Qatar as members of the Arab League and of the United Nations, agreement between Iran and Sharjah over Abu Musa, and, most important of all, the emergence of the United Arab Emirates as a new State. We have signed new treaties of friendship with all these states and they inherit satisfactory arrangements for their defence. These are solid and noteworthy achievements, on which can be built co-operation for the future, both between these Arab States themselves, and I hope between them and Iran. The situation now achieved represents a reasonable and acceptable basis for the security and future stability of that area.—[Vol. 812; c. 1227–30.]
Mr. Hattersley: May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the very considerable achievement which he has notified to the House and particularly on the wisdom of setting a terminal date for direct British participation in the Gulf—a policy which I had the honour to urge from the benches opposite between 1967 and 1970? I confirm the Opposition's support for his view that long-term disputes should not be allowed to drag on but should be brought to a speedy conclusion.
Bearing in mind that the dispute in Abu Musa between Iran and Sharjah has been brought to a successful conclusion, because of the Foreign Secretary's decision to put a terminal date on our participation, may I ask him a question about Ras al Khaimah? Many of us suspect that the difficulties there—and we all regret the loss of life—are in part the result of the refusal of that State to enter the Union of Arab Emirates. Is membership of the Union still available to that State and is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to continue to press it to join that Union as a logical and

947
sensible alliance of which it should become a member?
I should like to ask a detailed but I think important question about the defence arrangements. The Foreign Secretary has told us that the Trucial Oman Scouts will be the basis of the force comprising the Army of the United Arab Emirates. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that individual national armies—and I think particularly of the Abu Dhabi Defence Force—will be placed at the disposal of the Union as a whole and will be incorporated into the forces of the Union?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, but I must say that he left us with an almost impossible diplomatic problem—which makes the congratulations all the better. He asked me two particular questions, one about Ras al Khaimah. Yes, the answer is that we are encouraging Ras al Khaimah as far as we can to join the Union and we very much hope that the Ruler will do so. As far as the military question is concerned—the last question the hon. Gentleman asked me—the answer is yes.
Mr. Walters: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving this very satisfactory settlement in the Gulf? It reflects great credit on Sir William Luce and all the negotiators. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give maximum support to the new Union of Arab Emirates and also make sure that nothing is done or said to exacerbate relations between the new Union and Iran, because good relations between them are essential for stability in the Gulf?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and associate myself with his tribute to Sir William Luce on his tireless work in trying to negotiate a settlement. We will support the Union, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the interests of the Rulers and the States in this area and of the Union and of Iran are really identical.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is unwise to congratulate any Minister on the creation of a federation till it has survived for at least
948
15 years? But is he further aware that, none the less, the House would wish to extend its good wishes to the Union of Arab Emirates? May I ask him two questions? First of all, he did not mention the question of the Buraimi Oasis and the dispute which goes on between Saudi Arabia and Sheikh Zaid. May we take it from that that he regards that problem as solved? Secondly, when the Tunbs were invaded we were still under treaty obligations to Sharjah. As a result of that, is it our intention to use our good offices between the Sheikh of Sharjah and the Shah of Iran to bring about some amicable settlement? Does he accept that we have continuing political obligation in that connection?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Buraimi dispute still goes on, I am afraid. We have not been able to settle it, but there are talks still continuing about that with the King of Saudi Arabia. As far as the Tunbs Islands are concerned, the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah felt he could not make an agreement with the Shah of Iran. It may be that the Ruler of Sharjah will be able to help the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah to come to some arrangement about the future of any people of the islands who may want to return to the islands. I think, as I said before, in the overall interests of the security of the Gulf this arrangement is the best which can be made.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have the Tunbs in fact been annexed by Iran? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider making a further statement about that. Also, could my right hon. Friend define what is going to be the relationship between Iraq and ourselves? Have we any diplomatic relations with Iraq?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Iraq has broken off relations with us for reasons which I find it very difficult to understand. I hope they will be resumed. As for the Tunbs and Abu Musa, their sovereignty is left open.
Mr. James Johnson: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary mentioned bloodshed and fighting when Iranian forces entered Abu Musa, is he not being complacent about this. Is there not a skeleton in the cupboard—which he may have to face at the United Nations? In

949
view of the fact that for 150 years we have administered both the Tunbs and Abu Musa, working from the mainland and the south, is this not a very much more difficult question than the right hon. Gentleman appears to tell the House? Why, if he could buy off Sharjah with £8 million and an agreement on an oilfield, could Sir William Luce not have had something similar to settle the claims of Sheikh Zaqur over Abu Musa?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I understand that the landing on the Tunbs was unopposed and peaceful, but there was an incident later, and that in that a policeman and three Iranians were shot. Sir William Luce tried very hard to get a successful arrangement with Ras al Khaimah as he got from Sharjah, but the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah felt he could not make an agreement. I wish it had been possible. We did all we could.
Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman said that so far as the sovereignty of the Tunbs and Abu Musa is concerned the issue remains open. Is that the view of the Government of Iran or is it the Foreign Secretary's view?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The view of the Government of Iran, as I understand it, in relation to Abu Musa and in relation to the Tunbs, is that the sovereignty issue has not been raised by either side, but, of course, it can be raised by either side at any time.

MEMBERS AND MINISTERS (REMUNERATION)
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): On 4th December last I announced to the House the Government's intention with all-party agreement to refer the question of Members' and Ministers' pay to the independent Review Body.
Accordingly that body was asked by the Government to consider what changes were desirable in the emoluments, allowances and expensese of Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons, including Mr. Speaker and other holders of remunerated offices in both Houses of Parliament, and in the relevant pension arrangements.
950
The Review Body's report, under the Chairmanship of Lord Boyle, has now been received and is being published today.
In paragraph 121 of its report the Review Body states:
"We have been conscious of the declared intention of the present Government to implement our proposals unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. We have regarded this as placing on us an added responsibility to keep our recommendations for increases and improvements to the absolute minimum which we consider to be necessary. It is in our view of the highest importance that these recommendations both as they affect salaries and allowances should now be implemented as a whole and in full."
The Government intend to respond to this strong expression of the Review Body by accepting the proposals of the report, subject to further discussion with the parties, and with the House authorities, regarding the detailed implementation of the proposed new allowances for Members.
The Resolutions on Members' pay and allowances will be introduced to take effect from 1st January, 1972. The legislation necessary to give effect to the changes in the salaries of Ministers and other office holders will be introduced shortly so as to permit of increases from 1st April, 1972. That dealing with the new pension arrangements will be introduced as soon as possible.
Mr. Peart: First, I should like on behalf of the Opposition to thank Lord Boyle for his report and also to thank him and his colleagues for the very hard work they have put in to complete their recommendations this year, and I should also like to thank the Lord President of the Council for so promptly reporting to the House. He will appreciate that we have only just received this report and naturally—as, indeed, all hon. Members would—we should like carefully to study the recommendations in the report. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that he will introduce the necessary Motions to make Lord Boyle's recommendations effective on Members' pay and allowances from 1st January, 1972. We shall also have carefully to examine the necessary legislation to give effect to the salaries of Ministers and other office holders and, of course, the new pensions arrangements.

951
I think, therefore, that at this stage it would be better to say no more.
Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thanking Lord Boyle and his Committee for their most thorough and comprehensive report made after a great deal of consideration of a very difficult subject.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Leader of the House congratulate Lord Boyle on what, on first reading, seems to be a most fair, reasonable and informative report? Will he also accept the congratulations of the House on his courageous decision to implement the report as a whole? Will he assure the House that the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Civil List will be given equally expeditious treatment, the more so since there is no disagreement between Government and Opposition over ends but only over means?
Mr. Whitelaw: On my hon. Friend's first point, I would not wish myself to receive any form of congratulations from the House on what I think the whole House regards as a very difficult matter. Equally, I have said that we realise what a thorough and comprehensive job Lord Boyle has made of his consideration. Perhaps I might simply add to my hon. Friend that, however difficult the problems may be, if Lord Boyle and his Committee unanimously and independently believe, as they do, that such increases are necessary to ensure a modern and effective Parliament, then it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole for them to be carried through.
Mr. Wellbelloved: In view of the disturbing facts disclosed in paragraph 10 of the report in connection with Members' outside activities, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing forward with his proposals to implement the Boyle Committee's report a programme for the full and compulsory disclosure of Members' outside interests and remuneration?
Mr. Whitelaw: The report of the Committee was discussed at the time through the usual channels, and it was agreed that no further action should be taken. I am of course prepared again to discuss that matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Longden: Why should junior Ministers, who are much the hardestdone-by section of the whole parliamentary population, have to wait for three months for their increase?
Mr. Whitelaw: Because, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, legislation has to be carried through this House to give effect to such changes. I think it would be the wish of the whole House that there should be no question of backdating any increases which might be subsequently agreed.
Mr. Thorpe: The Leader of the House will realise that we shall want to study the report in detail, but is he aware that Lord Boyle, as a former Minister, and indeed a backbencher in this House, is uniquely placed to go into the problem of the conditions of Ministers and Members, and that the whole House will be grateful to him and his colleagues for the enormous amount of work they have put into this report?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is right for us to appreciate that Lord Boyle had the assistance of the Review Body which is an extremely distinguished collection of men from outside, with interests in industry and throughout the community, who gave their minds independently to the problems put before them. We appreciate how much they did.
Mr. Chapman: As Lord Boyle's immediate successor in this House, I hope it will not be thought inappropriate for me to add to the eulogies and to congratulate him and his Committee on the painstaking care which they took in this difficult and complex matter. Whatever the public reaction to the report may be, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices and considerable influence to try to get over to the public that a large proportion of a Member of Parliament's existing salary is used in essential and unavoidable expenses in carrying out his parliamentary duties, and that, unless those expenses can be met, the effective discharge of an M.P.'s duties is considerably impaired?
Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to my hon. Friend, whose position I fully appreciate, I think the wisest course for the House to adopt is to hope that a wide variety of people throughout the country will read the unanimous report of Lord Boyle

953
and the independent Committee, because therein is set out a clear indication of the problems involved in membership of the House.
Mr. Ford: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be greeted with appreciation by the younger Members of the House, particularly the provincial Members with growing families? What machinery has the right hon. Gentleman in mind for future reviews of the situation, and will he consider making an ad hoc payment to Members who lost their seats in the last election?
Mr. Whitelaw: As I have said, the proposals set out in the report must be for the future, and I think we must all accept that.
Sir R. Cary: As Chairman of the Trustees of the Members' Fund, may I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has done to bring fulfilment to this most valuable report?
Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to my hon. Friend, whose work in this field the whole House recognises, I would point out that there are some problems in connection with the new proposals concerning pensions which will have to be very carefully worked out. That is why I have made it clear that legislation on that subject will be separate from the other legislation. Time will be needed to make sure that we get all the arrangements correct.
Mr. William Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there may be some hon. Members on this side of the House who will view with suspicion this package of Tory terms? Will he assure the House that Members of Parliament will be better off, bearing in mind that the tax position of Members of Parliament is different from that of members on the Civil List to whom the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) referred?
Mr. Whitelaw: I must admit to being a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remark about this proposal being put forward on Tory terms. It was with all-party agreement, in accordance with the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that I originally agreed that this matter should be referred to the independent Review
954
Body which was set up with the agreement of this House. I am, therefore, entitled on those two grounds to say to the hon. Gentleman that these are in no way Tory terms. In answer to the independent Review Body's report, bearing in mind what the report said about regarding it of the highest importance that these recommendations as they affect both salaries and allowances should now be implemented as a whole and in full, all I am saying is that the Government accept the proposals in the report. This surely must mean that these proposals are being put forward on the basis of an independent report. I do not think anyone in the House would regard them as being otherwise than independent. The report sets out what is believed to be right for Members of Parliament to enable them to carry out their duties properly in a modern and effective Parliament.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Arising out of the question asked a few moments ago on the subject of Members' interests, although those of us who served on the Select Committee which looked into this subject in the last Parliament understand and have accepted that our report is not to be implemented as such, are we now to understand—and, if so, is it not for the first time—that no action of any kind is thought to be necessary or desirable in this regard?
Mr. Whitelaw: I did not mean to give that impression. If I did, I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend. What I said was, at the time when this was considered in the last Parliament, in view of the great difficulties involved in taking action in this field, nothing was done. As I have said, I am prepared to consider again through the usual channels whether it is possible, consistent with the great difficulties, which no one knows better than my right hon. and learned Friend, to take some of the actions proposed.
Mr. Faulds: Does the Leader of the House realise that not all hon. Members are entirely happy about these recommendations? Some hon. Members came into the House with the conception that they were here to serve the community rather than to reap an income comparable to that of their professional and commercial colleagues in other occupations?
Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which can, of course, be discussed. I should like the hon. Gentleman to read carefully what Lord Boyle and his Committee have said in their report. I do not think that it will justify the assertion which the hon. Gentleman has made. It is only reasonable that Members in this House should be able properly and effectively to discharge their duties as representatives of their constituencies. That, I believe, is the basis of what Lord Boyle and his Committee put forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study carefully what is said in the report before we debate the Motion.
Mr. Kinsey: Following the comment from the hon. Member for Smethwich (Mr. Faulds), may I also say that I rather doubt the wisdom of introducing a rise of this extent for Members of this House and question, not the report, but the strategy of the Government in introducing an increase of this amount while asking the rest of the country to take lesser pay rises? We should set an example.
Mr. Whitelaw: I must repeat, because it is very important in this context, what Lord Boyle's Committee said in paragraph 121 of its report. It had considered all the circumstances and then it said:
"We have regarded this as placing on us an added responsibility to keep our recommendations for increases and improvements to the absolute minimum which we consider to be necessary. It is in our view, of the highest importance that these recommendations, both as they affect the salaries and allowances, should now be implemented as a whole and in full."
That is the view of the independent Review Body set up to consider how Members of Parliament could serve their constituents in a modern Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider it.
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call two more hon. Members whom I have seen standing up from the beginning.
Mr. John Mendelson: As in recent years there has been a tendency to strengthen the Committee system and to provide staff for Committees, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the time has come to equip the individual Member with a research assistant so
956
that he can play his full part? The report does not go far enough in this respect. It does not equip, as is the case with the United States Congress, every hon. Member with a research assistant. Is it not time that the Government thought in that direction and brought forward additional proposals?
Mr. Whitelaw: That question shows that I am wise to steer what would be described as a middle course. I am assailed on the one side for going too far by accepting an independent Review Body's report, and on the other for not going far enough. My position is simple. We ask a highly-skilled and important independent Review Body to review the whole circumstances. Having done so, I believe it is right, in all the circumstances, bearing in mind what it has said, to accept its proposals.
Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to note that in the paragraph before the one he quoted it is stated that the general rise in salaries has been 67 per cent. since we last had a rise, whereas the proposal is for a 38 per cent. increase. May I say that, contrary to some of the things said—and I can claim to be the nearest thing my back benchers have to a shop steward—I entirely accept the generosity with which the right hon. Gentleman has immediately accepted this report. I do not think it goes far enough, but I am glad that he has accepted it.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, without commenting one way or the other on the title he gives himself. I would say to him, and to others, that I believe that if we establish a precedent in this House, that if we refer something to an independent Review Body we should accept its report. That is the right way to proceed. Sometimes, some hon. Members may think that it could have gone further, while others may think it has gone too far. But if there has been an independent, comprehensive and thorough study of the whole problem, we will have done it the correct way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Wilkinson: With the greatest respect, I gave notice that I wished to move the Adjournment of the House

957
under Standing Order No. 9. May I have your leave to do so?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot prevent the hon. Member.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Mr. Wilkinson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the invocation by India of the ludo-Soviet Defence Pact, her recognition of Bangla Desh, the large-scale invasion by Indian Regular forces into another Commonwealth country with which the United Kingdom is allied in S.E.A.T.O. and C.E.N.T.O. and the extension of the conflict to the Indo-Pakistan border in the west."
The reasons are as follows. I wholeheartedly support the mediation and conciliation advocated by the Foreign Secretary, but there are arguments that must be put before the House. The protagonists in this tragic conflict are Commonwealth members and recipients, at least until recently in the case of Pakistan, of large amounts of British commodity and project aid, which is the responsibility of this House.
Second, this House has not had the opportunity to debate the Indo-Soviet Defence Pact, whose implications are only now being fully realised. Third, this House must debate the implications of
958
the admission of the Peoples Republic of China into the United Nations which could vitally affect the resolution of this conflict. Fourth, the attitude of the United States, our closest ally, appears on the point of diverging from our own, which is something which the House would like to debate. Fifth, five British journalists have been imprisoned in India, in Calcutta, I believe. Sixth, allied shipping, namely that of the United States and Greece have been harassed. Seventh, the future right of self-determination of the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir and the veto of the Soviet Union in the United Nations on previous occasions is something which this House would like to debate and which affects this issue.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has, as he has every right to do, asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the invocation by India of the Indo-Soviet Defence Pact, her recognition of Bangla Desh, the large-scale invasion by Indian Regular forces into another Commonwealth country with which the United Kingdom is allied in S.E.A.T.O. and C.E.N.T.O. and the extension of the conflict to the Indo-Pakistan border in the west."
Without doubt, these are very important matters to which the House has already paid some attention today. My decision is a procedural one as to whether it is right to have a debate under Standing Order No. 9. I have considered the matter and I cannot grant the application.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.29 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a Bill of great importance to both Scottish housing authorities and Scottish householders. It will reconstruct the financial framework within which Scotland's present and future housing problems can be successfully tackled.
  The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the policies that we outlined in our White Paper last July on "The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland". Our over-riding objective is good housing in a good environment for everyone in Scotland.
  There are many drawbacks in the present system. The subsidies are not distributed so as to help to meet the worst housing problems. The rents paid by tenants do not relate to their capacity to pay. The help available to the poorer tenant is at present incomplete and haphazard. Moreover, the system of rent control in the private sector is unnecessarly leading to decay and to new slums which will, if left unchanged, add to our problems in the future. Furthermore the Scottish ratepayer is at present footing 35 per cent. of the financial cost of local authority housing whereas in England the ratepayers' share is about 10 per cent.
  The system must be altered if we are to make progress now. Changes are needed because the main problems have changed. First we no longer need to build houses everywhere as quickly as possible. There are still acute shortages which must be met and slum houses which must be cleared away but these are increasingly concentrated in certain areas. So our new housing measures are directed towards meeting housing needs wherever they are and whatever form they take as well as concentrating Government help on those tenants and local authorities with the greatest need.
  Secondly, more attention must now be paid to what families really want, recog-
  960
  nising that their reasonable desires and expectations are changing. There are areas where council houses are standing empty. This is a fairly new phenomenon in Scotland, reflecting the changed situation. There is no longer the critical need for building new houses anywhere as a first priority. The standards and amenities of existing houses must also be improved to meet the reasonable expectations of tenants. In this essential work of improvement local authorities, as well as private owners, will be greatly encouraged by the increased assistance which this Government have already made available under the 1971 Act.
  The present Bill will promote the conditions in which we can get good housing, of various kinds, in the places where it is most needed in Scotland while encouraging home ownership and providing proper assistance to those who cannot afford to pay reasonable rents. The new subsidies which the Bill provides will be concentrated upon families who need such help, upon areas most in need of housing and on slum clearance. The total of these subsidies is expected to be greater than the total of present housing subsidies.
  Not only will the Bill introduce a uniform rent rebate scheme but it will also introduce, for the first time, a similar scheme to help tenants who are renting privately-owned accommodation. Then at last authorities will be assisting with housing those in their areas who need the help whether it is public or private accommodation they are renting. Local authority rents which are at present being heavily subsidised by Scottish ratepayers will be increased, subject to the rent rebate scheme. But they will go up by reasonable steps each year—steps not very different from the annual limits set by the last Government. The result will be a much fairer system in which ratepayers in Scotland are not heavily subsidising their neighbours regardless of whether financial help is needed.
  Before leaving the question of council house rents, it is worth noting the remarks on this subject by the Leader of the Opposition. Speaking in the Debate on the Address on 2nd November he referred to the Government's proposals for the public sector and said that they would on average double the vast majority of council house rents. I wonder

  961
  whether he is aware of what happened in Scotland during the five and a halt years of his own Government. During that time the average council house rent in Scotland was doubled. During the five and a half years when his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was Secretary of State for Scotland the average council house rent was doubled, from 71p in 1964 to £1·42 in 1970. This was despite the ceiling of 37½p average rent increase which the lag Government brought in as part of their ill-fated prices and incomes policy. This was at a time when there was no overall rebate scheme.
  We are left to wonder why the Leader of the Opposition should have made a remark so inappropriate in respect of Scotland. If he considers that doubling the average council house rent is reprehensible, what did he do to discourage the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock during that period? Or is another explanation that he had England in mind and had completely overlooked or had not bothered about what had been happening in Scotland? Whatever the explanation of these inappropriate remarks of the Leader of the Opposition the facts are there: the average council house rent was doubled in Scotland during the period of the Labour Government and there was no comprehensive rent rebate scheme to assist badly-off tenants.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving an undertaking that the present Government will not raise rents any more than roughly 15 per cent. to 16 per cent. per annum over the next five years?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is not listening to what I have been saying. I was speaking about what the Leader of the Opposition had said and pointing out that he was apparently referring to doubling the rents as reprehensible, yet this is exactly what happened during the time of his Government. I was not referring to what will happen in future.
  On behalf of the Government I am glad to claim the responsibility for the policy and content of the Bill.
  Mr. William Ross: I just want to get the right hon. Gentleman's figures correct. His accusation is that when I was Secretary of State in five and
  962
  a half years I increased the rents by 14s. a week. Is that the accusation?
  Mr. Campbell: I am simply stating the fact that when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State the average council house rent in Scotland was doubled from 71p to £142p. That is a fact, and in the light of it the statement by the Leader of the Opposition was incredible in Scottish terms.
  On behalf of the Government I am glad to claim full responsibility for the policies and content of this Bill. But I should like to acknowledge the great practical help which we have received in preparing it from the Scottish local authority associations. Our consultations with them have continued fruitfully and many of their comments and suggestions have contributed constructively to the present proposals.
  I was glad to note that one of the Opposition's leading spokesmen on housing, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), said in the debate on 8th November that he "believed in the philosophy of free choice". One of the principal objects of this Bill is to help promote a greater variety of choice in Scotland.
  Owner occupation, housing associations and societies and privately-rented accommodation—all must have an important place if we are to make real headway. Our objective is to provide as wide a choice as possible on as fair and equal terms as possible. In addition to new housebuilding in the public and private sectors, there must also he a more intensive assault on the remaining slums and a drive for house improvement. In this broad campaign we must enlist the efforts of every person and agency who can contribute. Local authorities will, of course, continue to lead in this field, but we welcome and will encourage the growing interest which is being shown in home ownership and voluntary effort in housing in Scotland. We need to harness the efforts of the housing authorities, the private building sector and the housing associations if we are to make good progress.
  It has wrongly been surmised by some hon. Members opposite—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is not here at the moment—that the total subsidies now being paid will be cut. The true picture

  963
  can be seen in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill. Far from the Government spending less on Scottish housing, as a result of the Bill there is to be an increased Exchequer commitment in the coming years. As the Memorandum explains, we estimate that the charge on the Consolidated Fund of £55 million for Scottish housing in the present financial year will rise until in four years' time it is likely to be of the order of £70 million to £75 million. These figures show with clarity that, while the Bill radically rearranges the way in which Government help will be given, this help is being intensified, not reduced. The taxpayers will make an increasing contribution, and this will be applied more effectively in future so that it meets real needs.
  We shall do this by helping people who need help not by subsidising bricks and mortar. In time, the policy embodied in the Bill will remove inequalities. Through the national rebate and allowance schemes, it will also remove inequalities between council and private tenants who need help. It will also get rid of discrepancies between different parts of the country. At present there are wide variations in rent levels; rent rebate schemes are far from universal and their terms vary from authority to authority; all this will be changed. Tenants—both council and private—will be able to enjoy broadly the same rent rebate and allowance terms, wherever they live, and ratepayers' and taxpayers' contributions to rent rebates and allowances will be put on a uniform basis throughout the country.
  The Bill will give substantial relief to Scottish ratepayers. It is now widely recognised that the past system of housing finance—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not seem to be interested in the situation of Scottish ratepayers. In the past it has been recognised that the system of housing finance has placed too heavy a burden on Scottish ratepayers, particularly those—including council tenants —in areas where housing need is greatest. On the latest available figures, the Scottish ratepayers are meeting about 35 per cent. of local authority housing costs, which is nearly as much as the proportion met by rents—which is about 40 per cent. By contrast, the ratepayer
  964
  in England meets only about 10 per cent., while rents there meet 70 per cent. It is more just and equitable to Scotland, and is likely to be more effective, for taxpayers in the country as a whole to take a bigger share of those burdens. Thus, as the Government's commitment under the Bill increases, the rate fund contribution to housing will be reduced. Indeed, we estimate that it will be more than halved over the next four years or so. This is an essential part of our plan to make the system both fairer and more effective.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: The right hon. Gentleman continually abuses statistics in percentage terms. Will he not agree that, though in percentage terms the burden on ratepayers might be reduced to about 25 per cent., in absolute terms, because of his open-ended commitment to private tenants, the burden might be substantially increased?
  Mr. Campbell: No. What I have been saying covers the whole field. The increased rental income resulting from the Bill will be used not to reduce Government housing subsidies but to relieve the Scottish ratepayer; it will also ensure that, with the assistance of the new subsidies, sufficient resources are available for a concentrated drive on a broad front to tackle Scotland's housing problems.
  Under the Bill tenants of houses rented from public authorities, taken as a whole, will make an increased contribution to the costs of their own housing. But those who need help will be given it through the provision that we are making for a national scheme of rent rebates and allowances. This will ensure that, whatever the actual costs of their houses, those in real need and unable to meet those costs will be given the help which they require—and this help will be given mainly from Government subsidy.
  Never before has there been a comprehensive rebate scheme of this sort. Instead of subsidies relating to buildings, the Bill will help families who really need assistance. If assistance is to go to those who need it, there must be some method of assessing that need. We intend to ensure that only information which is absolutely necessary for assessing rebates will be required and, naturally, it will be treated in complete confidence.

  965
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock when Secretary of State for Scotland sent at least two circulars exhorting local authorities to introduce rent rebate schemes for their tenants. By the time he left office 162 local authorities, owning about 90 per cent. of Scotland's local authority houses, were operating rent rebate schemes. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of what some of his hon. Friends disparage as "means testing".
  Mr. William Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman said that the information would be treated in complete confidence. Can he guarantee that information given to the Cabinet is treated in complete confidence? How can he guarantee that such information which will be available to all housing authorities in Scotland will be treated in complete confidence?
  Mr. Campbell: This is what the schemes I have just described and which came into existence when the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was Secretary of State for Scotland were seeking to do. Advanced schemes of this kind are operating in new towns in Scotland at present. The intention is to get the information and make sure that it is confidential.
  Mr. William Baxter: I appreciate the necessity for rebate schemes and I follow the right hon. Gentleman's statement that such schemes have been in operation in Scotland for some time. However, does the Secretary of State not agree that the schemes suggested in the Bill are so complicated that the average man in the street will find it impossible to know what his rights are?
  Mr. Campbell: I am coming to that point later. The number of rebates now granted—despite the fact that about 90 per cent. of local authority houses are covered by schemes—and the number of people in real need being given help are still far too small. In the new towns, however, the proportion of tenants receiving rebates is much greater and a scheme already exists similar to the one in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, far from discouraging these advanced rebate schemes in the new towns, appears to have encouraged them.
  From what I have said it is clear that there should be no political argument
  966
  between the two Front Benches on the need for a comprehensive rebate scheme. I hope that there will no longer be an argument about this between the two sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] What matters is that the rebate schemes should be carried out tactfully and fairly.
  The rent rebate proposals in the Bill owe much to the Report of the Brownlie Committee, which was set up by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock in 1968 with the remit
  "to recommend the principles on which local authority rent rebate schemes should be based."
  That Committee reported in October of last year and in its report stated that some existing schemes do no more than pay lip service to the matter of assisting tenants who cannot afford to pay the full rent.
  We are grateful to the Brownlie Committee for the work it has done. Having been established by the previous Government to look into these matters, it has shown conclusively that a comprehensive scheme of the kind prescribed in the Bill is needed.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most local authorities are operating rent rebate schemes and that in many instances people in need have their rents paid through the social security system? Is there now to be a transfer of this burden from central Government responsibility to local government?
  Mr. Campbell: I shall he coming to that matter later. I shall be describing the system in more detail when I come to deal with the provisions of the Bill.
  The intention is to make it as simple as possible while keeping it fair. I hope that this answers the point put to me by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). We hope to keep the scheme simple so that the individual will have to deal with not two bodies but with only one.
  Mr. James Hamilton: My question was: will there be a transfer of responsibility from central to local government?
  Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill he will see the proportion to be contributed by central Government—and it is a very large proportion.

  967
  It has been suggested at times by hon. Members opposite that there is a discrepancy between the Government's treatment of owner-occupiers and council tenants. I should like to put this in perspective. It is estimated that in Scotland in 1969–70 the amount of tax reductions for owner-occupiers came in all to £7 million. This was roughly equivalent to £13 per owner-occupier in Scotland. In the same year council tenants in Scotland received Government subsidies and rate contributions amounting to £70 million—10 times the amount for owner-occupiers. Moreover, this subsidy and rates assistance constituted just under £100 per house—more than seven times the amount of individual assistance to the average owner-occupier. After the new system has entered into effect, Government assistance per council tenant will, of course, still be far more than it is for an owner-occupier.
  I trust that the Opposition are not changing their minds about the tax incentive to owner-occupation. The Labour Government appeared to give their blessing by introducing an Option Mortgage Bill, in the passage of which I played a part in the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman knows, as we all know, that the disproportion of privately-owned and local authority houses in Scotland is very great. Will he give the accurate figure and tell us what the figure for Great Britain is and not just single out Scotland?
  Mr. Campbell: I am amazed that in this debate on Scottish housing, when I am giving accurate figures for Scotland, having seen in the Press and elsewhere comments and criticisms and genuine requests for information, I should be criticised for supplying the figures for Scotland. I do not have the figures for Great Britain with me at the moment, but they could be provided if the hon. Gentleman wants them. In this debate I am concerned with Scotland, and so are most other hon. Members. Successive Governments have recognised that the tax concession is part of the national encouragement of savings as a whole and a useful incentive to help the individual to take more responsibility for his home.
  968
  Part I of the Bill contains provisions for the new subsidies to replace the existing Government contributions for new house-building, which will be phased out gradually over a transitional period. This period will vary, but on average it will last for five or six years. For those authorities with the largest entitlement to existing contributions the transition could be as long as eight or nine years.
  The phasing out of the old system will be made through the residual subsidy. This subsidy not only reflects subsidy entitlement under the old system for houses already in the stock, but also gives local authorities additional assistance in respect of houses in their programmes at the moment. As a result, more than 40,000 local authority houses, which otherwise would not have been, seem likely to be included for residual subsidy. This is because entitlement to the residual subsidy in 1972–73 will be calculated, not merely on the amount in subsidies which local authorities will receive in the current year 1971–72, but also on an additional amount, being the subsidies they would have received this year if houses submitted to me for approval before 1st December, 1971, had, in fact, been completed this year.
  At the moment, subsidy is not payable on houses before they have been completed, but we felt it right, under these transitional arrangements for the bringing in of the new subsidy system, to ensure that there should be a real incentive to local authorities at present to press ahead with building activity. The incentive is tangible. It means an immediate addition of perhaps £10 million to the residual subsidy per year payable with a reduction of the same amount in the rate burden in Scotland. I welcome the way in which local authorities have recognised this incentive to increase their programmes in areas of need and I am glad to be able to give the House some recent information resulting from this. I am glad to say that it is now clear that, after the continuing downward trend since 1967, approvals of new houses by public authorities in Scotland have begun to turn upwards. From the latest figures available, it is clear that the number of approvals in the public sector during 1971 should be about 3,000 more than for 1970, a significant increase.
  Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the actual figures?
  Mr. Campbell: Clearly, this can be only an estimate at this stage, but it is a pretty clear estimate. It is also clear from the recent submissions of proposals from local authorities that there will be a considerable increase again in 1972 in approvals for new house-building in the public sector. This reversal of the trends since 1967 is a result of the stimulus which we have built into the changeover arrangements for transferring to the new subsidy system. This increase in new building is very welcome because of the additional employment which it will provide over the next two or three years in the construction industry.
  Building in the private sector in Scotland is growing, too. The starts for the first nine months of this year were about 7,500 compared with just over 6,000 for the equivalent period of last year. It is clear that new house-building in the private sector is increasing, too.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am puzzled about the estimate of approvals, because we do not get the figures until mid-January. Are not many of these approvals coming in because of the Bill's deadline of 1st December? Would the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on how he estimates approvals will stand in 1972? He asserted that they would be greater than those for 1970 by 3,000-plus.
  Mr. Campbell: The date of 1st December, 1971, is in the Bill. This is part of the incentive which we have built into the transfer arrangements in order to stimulate house-building. But we are getting new submissions for the latter period which now gives us a chance to see the rough size of the further increase in 1972.
  For the future, the concentration on areas in need will be achieved through the housing expenditure, high cost and slum clearance subsidies. The new housing expenditure and high cost subsidies will ensure that tenants will be strongly protected against rapid increases in housing expenditure, or high levels of housing expenditure. This should provide an effective incentive to local authorities to proceed with programmes of new housing that they need and with the increasingly important rehabilitation
  970
  of their existing stock in the knowledge that the Government, not their own tenants, are meeting the major share of the burden.
  The full significance of the housing expenditure subsidy may not yet have been properly appreciated. The housing expenditure subsidy will meet initially 90 per cent—with the proportion reducing by stages to 75 per cent. over subsequent years—of any increase in expenditure incurred by a local authority on its housing revenue account in excess of £6 per house. It has not, I think, been fully recognised that this subsidy will be cumulative throughout the 1970s. An entitlement to the subsidy arising in 1972–73 will be paid not only in that year but in each year thereafter until and including 1981–82, and this will apply to entitlements arising in each succeeding year until 1977–78. I am sure that once local authorities have been able to work out in detail the implications of this subsidy taken together with the other new subsidies provided for in this Bill, they will appreciate that they are being given a degree of certainty in planning their housing activity in every respect—repairs, improvements, as well as new building—which they have hitherto lacked.
  The new subsidy system in Part I also gives recognition to the special problems of slum clearance. Up to now, there has been no incentive directed specifically to encouraging local authorities to get ahead with the vital task of clearing slums. The new subsidy fills this gap. It is a straightforward, clear-cut subsidy; the more local authorities spend on the essential tasks of clearing slums, the more subsidy they will immediately obtain. The subsidy will be of special benefit to those authorities engaged in the difficult but vital city centre and town clearance schemes. Assistance will be paid not only towards the actual costs of clearance works but also in payments to owner-occupiers and for good will to owners of commercial properties.
  The concentration of Government assistance to tenants in need will be achieved through the new rent rebate and allowance subsidies. Through these, the Government will bear by far the major part of the costs of the new national scheme of rent rebates and allowances—at a rate of 90 per cent. initially, reducing in subsequent years by stages to 75 per

  971
  cent. Hitherto, authorities have received no Government assistance directly in support of granting rent rebates, and this Government subsidy therefore represents an important new commitment to social welfare in Scotland.
  The provisions dealing with the rent rebate and allowance scheme are set out in Part II, together with the relevant Schedules. I will summarise the main principles which have been observed in preparing the scheme.
  First, the scheme is comprehensive. It covers all tenants in unfurnished accommodation owned by local authorities, new town development corporations, and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and the tenants of privately-owned unfurnished accommodation as well as those of houses owned by housing associations.
  Secondly, the scheme is fair. By that I mean that the computation of the rebates and allowances will be based on the resources and needs of the tenants. If the resources and needs of the tenants are such that, on the basis of the sliding scale in the scheme, no rent should be paid, then no rent will be paid.
  Thirdly, the scheme is flexible. No rebate and allowance scheme covering so many tenants, however carefully drawn, could hope to meet every situation and circumstance. Local authorities are therefore being given discretion, within limits, to take account of very exceptional circumstances of individual tenants or categories of tenants.
  Finally, the scheme is straightforward. The Government have been acutely aware of the necessity not only to give all tenants proper rights under the scheme, but to ensure—I come again to what was said by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter)—that tenants can know what their rights are. The House will see the provisions which we have included to require local authorities to give the maximum publicity to the rebate and allowance scheme and to require landlords to convey information about the scheme to their tenants.
  Comprehensive, fair, flexible and straightforward. These are the hallmarks of this scheme, which constitutes a great advance in housing and social welfare in Scotland.
  Part III of the Bill deals with local authority accounts. To a large extent the
  972
  provisions are technical and consequential on other parts of the Bill, but the overriding principle followed in framing new accounts has been that the council house rent payer should meet only those items of expenditure which should properly be a charge on him.
  Part IV deals with rents in the public sector. The average increase per house of any authority will be restricted to a maximum of £26 in any 12 months—50p per week—and no individual house will bear an increase of more than £39—75p per week.
  I must make three key points about the proposed system. First, the full increases will be met only by those who can afford them. Any tenant in need will be fully protected by the rebate scheme. Secondly, the increases for those who can afford them will be by reasonable steps, restricted to an average rise per house of 50p per week. This is not significantly above the maximum agreed by the Labour Government—37½p per week—at the time of the prices and incomes freeze when there were no arrangements for a comprehensive rebate scheme to protect the needy, which we are introducing. Thirdly, as I have already indicated, the increased rental income will not be used to reduce Government subsidies. The total of these is expected to increase.
  I turn now to rents in the private sector, dealt with in Part V. The main feature here is that the principle of converting controlled tenancies to rent regulation, which was promoted in the Rent Act, 1965, is now to be applied more widely. This speeding up of the process of conversion is made possible by the introduction of rent allowances for tenants of unfurnished accommodation in the private sector. Decontrol will be a gradual process spread over a period of years, and the transition for the individual tenant from a controlled to the registered fair rent will be phased in three equal annual instalments.
  Some increase in rent can generally be expected, but I must emphasise—since it is clear that there are some misconceptions on the point—that the level of fair rent fixed for a house depends directly upon the quality of the living conditions and the state of repair of the building. One of the objectives of decontrol is to provide a reasonable income from which

  973
  property can be kept in repair, the homes of tenants be made better, and Scotland's stock of older houses be used to better advantage. The independent procedures of the Rent Officer and Rent Assessment Committee, created by the 1965 Act, will ensure that rent levels increase only to the extent that the state of the property justifies. The tenant gets the benefit of the better maintained property and, if he cannot afford the new rent, he also gets the benefit of help from the new rent allowance.
  The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) was reported, in a speech on 20th November, as doubting whether repairs would be carried out. But the rent level can only increase under the 1965 Act, which he introduced, if Rent Officers and Rent Assessment Committees consider that the state of the property justifies an increase.
  The Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman of 22nd November also reported a curious statement which the hon. Member for Greenock is supposed to have made at the same conference on 20th November. He was reported as saying that if a Labour Government were returned to office the letting of private accommodation in Scotland would be ended. The headline was,
  "Labour would end landlord system."
  As the hon. Gentleman himself piloted the 1965 Act through the House of Commons, under which the fair rent system was introduced for privately owned accommodation, why has he now changed his mind? No doubt he will tell us in due course. We are also entitled to know what he intends to put in its place. He is reported at the conference to have said that the Labour Party is not opposed to owner-occupation, housing associations or co-operative housing. That confirms what I understand to be his view. But, because one cannot force a tenant to become an owner-occupier against his will or to join a housing association, is he proposing a takeover by local authorities? How would a Labour Government abolish the letting of private accommodation in Scotland? Is the hon. Gentleman again proposing the municipalisation of all such property?
  This was put forward by the Labour Party as part of its policy in 1959, but very quickly dropped thereafter. The House is entitled to an explanation from
  974
  the hon. Gentleman of what he means, especially as he was instrumental in introducing the fair rent system for this sector in Scotland.
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: In order to reinforce my reply this evening, if I am lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, may I ask the Secretary of State in what period, in years, he will transfer all presently controlled tenancies into the regulated sector?
  Mr. Campbell: It is not possible, without the gilt of second sight, to give an exact answer to that question. I have already stated that it will be a gradual process. When we reach the later stages of the Bill we shall be able to make our own guesses about how long it will be. It is impossible to give an exact figure. However, it is possible for the hon. Gentleman to explain his statement of policy. It may be that several of the Scottish newspapers wrongly reported him. After it appeared in more than one newspaper we thought that it was a reversion to the 1959 policy which had been discarded shortly after it was put forward.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) the Secretary of State said that he was not sure how many years it would be. Obviously he does not remember his recent speeches. In the debate on the White Paper in the Scottish Grand Committee the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We intend over a period of three years to bring the remaining controlled tenancies into the fair rent system".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 27th July, 1971; c. 11.]
  Does he accept that?
  Mr. Campbell: Yes; but I am not given to making precise estimates of time, which is what I was asked to give. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has a statement of intention. I hope that that is helpful to him.
  Part VI deals with housing associations. The keynote of the new subsidy system for the associations is flexibility. The Government's concern is to see that the proper conditions are provided for housing associations to make a greater contribution in Scotland. Fair rents will be fixed for the tenants of associations,

  975
  who will therefore be in line—we believe that this is right and fair—with other tenants in privately-owned unfurnished accommodation. At the same time their tenants will be eligible for rent allowances, which will ensure that any who cannot afford the fair rent level will be fully protected.
  Part VII contains a number of miscellaneous provisions, mostly consequential upon the rest of the Bill. However, I should like in passing to draw attention to the new power which we are giving to local authorities to assist tenants moving from their houses with their legal and other expenses. This is a very practical way of encouraging home ownership, which we intend to encourage in Scotland.
  The Bill, then, is designed to set families and housing authorities free from an outdated financial system, so that Scotland's present and future housing problems can be overcome. The proposed switch of assistance from being tied directly to houses, irrespective of the needs and circumstances of their occupants, to helping families, whether in the public or private sector, whose needs are greatest, has been warmly welcomed by all those concerned with the real problems of Scottish housing. It will stimulate the building programme where it is most needed.
  I commend the Bill as a whole to the House as a well balanced and forward-looking reform of the financial framework for housing in Scotland. It is generous in its help to local authorities where the need is greatest, particularly in the transitional financial provisions, and it is compassionate in its help to people whose need is greatest. It will give a special impetus to slum clearance and the building programme in Scotland and, by increasing Government expenditure on housing but reducing the burden on the Scottish ratepayers, it provides a basis on which all householders, whether in the public or private sectors, can have a wider choice of home and better homes to choose from.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: That speech by the Secretary of State was one of the best we have heard from him, which makes us wonder what some of the others were like. It is rather
  976
  reminiscent of the comment made by an elder on leaving the kirk at the completion of a sermon. He said, "The first trouble with that sermon was that it was read. The second was that it was not very well read. The third was that it was not worth reading".
  I was amazed at the right hon. Gentleman's courage when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) that if he really wanted enlightenment he should read the Bill. The one thing we will not get by reading the Bill is enlightenment.
  It might have done the right hon. Gentleman himself a lot of good if he read the Bill, because then he would have at least have been able to answer one of the questions, and that related to the stages of decontrol. Even I, with my limited experience of housing Bills, can easily see that in the first year rents of £50 and over have to be decontrolled, in the second year rents of between £25 and £50 must be decontrolled, and in the third year rents of less than £25 must be decontrolled. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman have come clean on that? One of the troubles with the right hon. Gentleman is that he gets slogans fixed in his mind and refuses to tell us the implications of his slogans.
  Then there was that business to the effect that everybody would spend more and everyone would get more from the Bill. The genesis of the Bill was the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th October, 1970:
  "I come next to housing. … By the middle years of the decade this reform will be transforming housing and should lead to a saving in public expenditure"—
  there is no dubiety about that phrase—
  "of £100 to £200 million a year as compared with the level of expenditure which would have flowed from the policies in operation when we took office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 41.]
  Responsibility for housing finance does not last for only one year. A local authority which borrows money for housing does so for 60 years. Hitherto the Government have undertaken to meet part of that obligation year after year. As more houses are built each succeeding year, there is a growth in expenditure. I shall think all the less of the right hon. Gentleman if he tells us, "What I said was that there would be growth of expenditure

  977
  as of now". There will be a saving of expenditure as compared with how expenditure would have risen because of the continuation of building.
  I can understand the Government being alarmed. If we had continued to build houses at the rate at which the Labour Government were building them—well over 40,000 a year—there would have been a considerable rise in expenditure; and that alarmed the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. That was why they cut the expenditure.
  I promised the House that I would mention at least once a week how the right hon. Gentleman promised a new impetus for Scotland. Since that time unemployment has risen by 45,000.
  He is reported to have said to the Press of Scotland:
  "Scotland's share in the refashioning of the system of housing subsidies, rates and rebates will be announced shortly by Mr. Campbell."
  It was not announced properly. It was dealt with by means of a Written Answer and we had no opportunity to question the right hon. Gentleman.
  "On a per capita basis, savings in Scotland by the middle of the decade could be between £10 million and £20 million."
  It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind about them, but I am not concerned about what the subsidies will be next year—I think that they may well rise—or the year after that. I am concerned about what will happen after 1975. I am concerned about more than just finance. One of the things that the right hon. Gentleman did not do was to venture even an estimate as to what would happen to building of houses year after year.
  When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned an increase of 2,000 in approvals. I interrupted him and asked him for the figures. I was amazed that he could not give them. This elementary figure is the only one by which to judge the Government's performance. The right hon. Gentleman has not indicated what it will cost for each of the items of subsidy. We know that in 1975–76 we shall have a completely altered financial structure for housing and that that will affect local authorities.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the uncertainties have not all been cleared away. I am surprised that
  978
  he is appealing to local authorities. He has had one year. This statement was made on 27th October of last year, so he has had more than a year to tell local authorities what their position will be and to ensure that they knew all about it. Now he states that there are still uncertainties. Not one Scottish local authority knows exactly what its position will be, because there are all sorts of assumptions, including assumptions which are written into the Bill about what the Secretary of State might do about changing the formulae for standard rents and about rate rebate.
  The Secretary of State has been kidded. One of the great responsibilities of a Secretary of State for Scotland is to try to convince his Cabinet colleagues that the Scottish housing position is very much worse than the English one and that the whole tradition is different. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), one of our other newcomers to Scottish politics—
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: A breath of fresh air, too.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should not gloat about the fact that he got rid of the hon. Gentleman from Perthshire and that he landed in Ayrshire.
  In fact the position is very different from what the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was. The whole tradition of Scottish housing finance, which it should have been the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility to safeguard, has gone. We are being carried along English lines to hammer council tenants—
  Mr. Edward Taylor rose—
  Mr. Ross: I do not want to speak for too long, but I hope that I will be able to prove, even to the hon. Member, that what I am saying is right—
  Mr. Edward Taylor: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give way at all?
  Mr. Ross: Not just now. If I did, I would need to keep my finger on the place to ensure that I started again correctly.
  This is probably the most revolutionary housing Bill since 1920. But the reason that council house building arose from the Royal Commission, which reported in 1917 but was set up much

  979
  earlier, was that private interests were not building houses for the working classes in Scotland, and housing conditions were a disgrace to civilisation even in 1914. Thereafter, we had Bill after Bill, from Government after Government, and it has taken 50 years for hon. Gentlemen to face up to what have always been their prejudices and act upon them.
  I would draw attention to what I consider to be the most important part of the Bill. It begins on page 90, with schedule 8, headed "Termination of Part of Existing Contribution System". Schedule 9 contains 96 minor and consequential amendments to existing legislation, and Schedule II, headed "Repeals" includes Section I of the Housing Act, 1923, the whole of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930 the whole of the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act. Act after Act is completely wiped out. There are four pages of them. Everything related to subsidies goes, and we are left with this new system.
  The subsidy is now to be given to the individual. We all look forward, I am sure, to the next Agriculture Act, when subsidies will also go only to individual farmers—including half of the hon. Members opposite—on the basis of a means test, or to those landed estates which are getting very nice forestry grants. We will not give them to the industry but will relate them to a consideration of whether the Duke of Buccleugh really needs a subsidy to do something which he thinks is worth doing anyway—
  Mr. MacArthur: Come off it.
  Mr. Ross: I will not come off it. Hon. Gentlemen have found a new subsidy. Let us follow it through—let them follow it through—[interruption.]—I will come to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) in a moment. Hon. Members opposite are turning their backs on all the things they said in past Acts that they would do.
  Since the hon. Member for Hillhead interrupted me, let me deal with him right away. I refer to the Act of 1961, when he was clearing up the slums in Scotland and building new houses. They had fashioned "new, flexible weapons"—these are his words. They gave local
  980
  authorities the go-ahead, saying that the challenge and the opportunity were there. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman remembers that—
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I remember it very well.
  Mr. Ross: What happened?
  Mr. Galbraith: Nothing. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Ross: Out of the mouths of babes and Tory back-benchers. Nothing happened. It was worse than that, because, the year after that, the number of houses built in Scotland sank to the lowest level ever. That was the achievement of the hon. Member for Hillhead and of every Bill on housing introduced by a Tory Secretary of State.
  I wonder whether they remember all their pledges and promises. I have them all here. There is a quotation from the Daily Express, headed: "Housing: The Big Leap Forward". This is what they intended to do in 10 years. They were going to rise to a peak of 35,000 houses per year. How many houses will be built under this Bill, which is part of their 10-year programme? It was in 1964 that they became deathbed revolutionaries. Before that, the Scottish average was well under 30,000. In the last three full years of a Tory Government, 1961, 1962 and 1963, the number of houses that they built in Scotland was 82,000. In our last three years, we built 126,000. This is why they are concerned and worried about the cost.
  Whether hon. Members like it or not, this is what they have said. The first one to deny it will be the first one I quote. The hon. Member for Hillhead, for example, said:
  "People are being lured by the financial contribution of a subsidy into becoming what is clearly a type of second-class citizen."
  That is how he described tenants of council houses.
  The present Minister of State thought of council tenants as shiftless, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) talked about the moral fibre of the nation being eroded because people lived in council houses.
  So they decided to end this. There will be a saving—this is the purpose of the Bill—but not only will less money eventually be spent: it will also be spent

  981
  on more people. I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman. At least he has the decency to introduce a rent allowance in respect of private tenants—[Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State should not smile, because the simple reason that they need the allowance is that the rents will be raised.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why he introduced the fair rents system which put up the rents of people in such houses—with no rent allowances whatever.
  Mr. Ross: That was a very small start and in different circumstances altogether, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the cost of this new proposal? No one will get a rent allowance in the private sector in many of the great tenements of Glasgow unless these rents are going up. Even after they get the rebate, they will still be paying a higher rent than they pay now. This is the basis of the whole scheme, whether for local authorities or for anyone else. The rents of all the houses are going up. Some of the people will get rent rebates, and even those who get them will pay more rent.
  It is fascinating that the Secretary of State did not quote one instance. I wrote to the Chamberlain of Kilmarnock for an indication of what is likely to happen there. Remember what the right hon. Gentleman said—terrible man that I am, in five and a half years, I increased the rents by 14s. In answer to my query, I learned that, if a three-apartment house, as shown in Group C of the Chamberlain's table, is taken, the annual rent will have doubled by 1974–75—in three years. Councillors have expressed concern at this steep increase over a short period.
  "The ultimate level in this case in 1978–79 would be £240 per year."
  At present rents in Kilmarnock range from £31 to £100, giving an average of £77 per year. A rent of £31 is generally in respect of hostel accommodation. It is estimated that by 1974–75 that range will rise to between £62 and £200 and that by 1976–77 it will he between £82 and £268. It will have risen to between £96 and £312 by 1978–79, it is believed, which means that the present rents will have doubled.
  982
  To give an example of what this will mean to the people of Kilmarnock, a three-apartment or two-bedroomed house now let for £77 will, in three years' time, be £154. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that that is somewhat higher than the 14s. rise that occurred during our five-and-a-half years in office. In five years rents will have risen under the Tories by enormous sums. In this example, of a two-bedroomed house the rent will be £206 in five years' time and £240 by 1978–79. This will happen only if the Secretary of State does not alter the formula of the standard amount. If he alters it, it could be even higher. In other words, for a two-bedroomed house the rent will be nearly £5 a week.
  We are then told by the Government, "All will be well because of the rent rebate system." I am accused of having gaily put up rents without a rent rebate system in operation. I suggest that the Secretary of State reads the legislation and the debates that occurred at that time. He will find that I refused to increase rents unless a rent rebate system was operating. The fact that 90 per cent. of local authorities in Scotland now operate rent rebate schemes is because we insisted on such schemes being in operation.
  At no time did I compel a local authority to raise its rents. I supervised local authorities which were raising rents and endeavoured to keep them down, but in this instance the right hon. Gentleman is compelling local authorities to raise rents year by year. There has been power for many years to take this action on the basis of reviews, but now the Government are removing, rather than adding to, the powers of local authorities. I was reluctant even to supervise rents because I believe in local democracy. It is for local authorities to fix rents, and if they fix them at levels which are too high or too low it is then up to the people who elected them to demand a change. That is democracy.
  At the last election the Tories told the voters:
  "It will be for a Conservative Government to restore to the local elector and the local councillor the freedom of action he needs to make life better for himself and his fellow citizens and to control his own destiny and that of his community."

  983
  It makes one sick to read stuff like that and then to realise that hon. Gentlemen opposite are now laying down the law and telling local authorities not only that they must raise their rents but that they must keep raising them year by year, so that certain dates in the year having been fixed—some have already decided on the end of December, some April and others May—those will be the dates year by year when rents will go up until they reach the level which the Government have prescribed, which in many cases will be intolerable.
  Of course there have been rent rebate schemes before. Local authorities have introduced them. But the scheme in the Bill will apply irrespective of whether or not local authorities like it. They are being given only a 10 per cent. power in this matter, which is little or nothing. "A better tomorrow" indeed! Hon. Gentlemen opposite declared at the last election:
  "We think it wrong that the balance of power between central and local government should have been distorted and we will redress the balance and increase the independence of local authorities. Under our new style of government we will devolve Government power so that more decisions are made locally."
  One Member of the present Government told us: "authorities will now be freer. They must have freedom". Who could have said that but the woman, the right hon. Lady, who took away the milk from the weans.
  We are told by the Government that local authorities will have freedom in this matter. In fact, the only freedom they get is the invidious task of deciding, within the aggregate increase that must be achieved, which rents will go up by 20p, 40p, 60p and the highest possible of 75p. In Kilmarnock the houses are grouped into categories A, B, C and D according to their dates of construction. C category houses were the first to be built after the war. Category D houses are newly built and are more expensive because they are perhaps better from the amenity point of view.
  When talking about rebates the Minister speaks of fairness, but if he examines the scheme and the White Paper explaining it he will discover a flaw. A man living in a town with his wife and three children will be paying a certain rent
  984
  because of the house in which he lives. Another man living in the same area, in a house of the same size, with a wife and three children—I am supposing that the wife in each case works and that the income is the same—will get the same rebate on the basis of their reckonable incomes but one will pay a higher rent at the end of the day. [Interruption.] Page II of the White Paper clearly points out:
  "If the standard rent is £2·50, the minimum is £1 … Therefore, the rebated rent payable is £2·10 … If the standard rent is £3·50, the minimum rent is … 40 per cent. of £3·50 … is £1·40. Therefore, the rebated rent payable is £2·50."
  The difference in this case could be 40p. or 8s., depending on the house the person occupies. It is clear, therefore, that there is no absolute poverty line drawn here. Indeed, if the rent goes up, then even if the person has a rebated rent, his rebated rent goes up. Considerable difficulties are being created for local authorities.
  It is suggested that all this will be helpful to everyone. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman realises how many people will be unwilling to apply for rebate simply because of the information that local authorities will demand from applicants. The right hon. Gentleman was foolish enough earlier to say that he could guarantee that the information would remain confidential. He should not have used the word "guarantee" He is in no position to give such a guarantee, because the information will be in the hands of local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman may recall the circular from the director of education of Caithness in relation to school meals. He thought that it was inevitable that the information would leak out.
  There are many people who, even though entitled to rent rebate, will not apply for it, and who will thus be in hardship. That has been proved every time we have had a means test. The difference here is that with the level of rents we are to have, instead of there being a small minority of people who will be entitled to rent rebate, there will be a very large number entitled to it and whose response will be quite different. As the years go on the situation will get worse.
  What is the right hon. Gentleman trying to achieve? He is trying to drive people out of local authority housing into

  985
  private housing. We as a Government encouraged as many people as wanted to to build their own houses and to have the freedom to do so, but the exercise of that freedom depends on the cost of owning one's own house.
  The right hon. Gentleman might have spoken of the tremendous increase in house building costs there has been over the last three years. He might have reminded the House that in Scotland today, and certainly where I live, a person is lucky to get an ordinary three-bedroom house at under £5,000—very lucky indeed. That being so, what chance has the person with an ordinary average wage of being able even to get a mortgage at that price? He has no chance at all.
  When one looks at what is being done in Glasgow and Edinburgh to rid us of the slums, and all the rest of it, we say that those who talk in terms of private industry building and of people owning their houses do not know what they are talking about. People will therefore continue to live in slums unless the local authorities are given the freedom and the financial support to build, yet local authorities will not know from the Bill what exactly that financial support will be. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done about slum clearance, but let us remember that it consists only of payments and compensation in respect of demolition. There will be no subsidy for the actual building, except that some will be terminal. High cost subsidy, and the rest, will not start for some time.
  Coming to how the Secretary of State decided to operate, I must remind him of some fairly simple facts. We are working on the new subsidy basis and the financially changed basis of pooled historic costs. Let me quote:
  "… a pooled historic cost rents system means that those local authorities which have the biggest need to provide new houses would of necessity have to put the biggest rent burden upon the tenants concerned…. historic cost rents would, in some of the major boroughs concerned … mean a trebling of existing rents … I can only say that the pooled historic cost system would be a very unfair way of fixing rents for local authority housing, and so far it is the only alternative suggestion…. It would result in substantial increases in rents in some of the worst and most difficult areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 39.]
  That is the system embodied in the Bill. Who used the words I have
  986
  quoted? They were used by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 15th November, 1971, when debating the English Housing Finance Bill. This is the system which the Secretary of State for Scotland has elected shall apply to Scotland, and I have just read the judgment on that system by his own right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman be fair enough to say that it also appears to be the judgment of his own right hon. and hon. Friends that the Scottish system would be better for them?
  Mr. Ross: I am talking of what the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend said, and it is up to him to controvert it.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: One thing incontrovertible is that they were all talking about the situation in England and Wales and not that in Scotland, where it is considerably different.
  Mr. Ross: The pooled historic cost system is not different in its application, but in relation to some of the tasks that have to be done it is very different.
  The right hon. Gentleman must also appreciate that we are not saved from the fair rent system, because he intends to consider it in three or four years' time. I ask him to appreciate the burdens he will place on particular tenants, such as the effect that the changed pattern of expense will have on the family incomes even of people who will be able to pay the rents.
  The Secretary of State must realise the great social change that will come over housing in our cities and towns. There is grave danger of this system probably costing very much more than he originally thought. The fact that we have had 45,000 more unemployed, many of them council tenants, since the right hon. Gentleman first embarked on the Bill means that the cost of rebates will be very much greater than was first envisaged.
  If anyone says that there is no ceiling, I say that there is a ceiling in respect of the actual amount. I believe that £6·50 is the ceiling of any particular rent. The right hon. Gentleman should read his own Bill if he doubts me. There may be a ceiling on aggregated costs, and that is one of the things that troubles us because

  987
  I have never known a Tory Government not to act when they saw a ceiling was being approached. We shall see a very considerable change which, socially, within a town will not be healthy, if we are to have local authority houses regarded as places only for second-class citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the consequences of their own actions. If they say that all who can afford it build their own houses it obviously means that all those in local authority housing cannot afford to build. It means that the Government are dividing the nation and the towns and this is one of the more serious matters. It would be far better to leave local authorities to fix reasonable rents.
  What holds back owner-occupation in Scotland is our own economy. We are held back by our failure to bring in industry which pays decent wages and salaries, and in which there is stability of employment. Given those things, people can exercise a choice: without them, there is no question of free choice.
  The fair rent system means that we are embarking on this speedy decontrol within three years. A considerable part of the rent allowance in the system will be paid not by the taxpayer but, for the first time, by the ratepayer. This is a completely new burden on the ratepayer. And it must be remembered that 25 per cent. of the rent rebate for people in local authority houses will also be borne eventually by the ratepayers. It may well be, because we cannot be given figures and the right hon. Gentleman has said that there is here no ceiling, that we are undertaking a burden the gravity of which we do not know, and a burden over which we exercise no control.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is relying on the independent judgments of rent assessment committees, but it must be remembered that there is no appeal from that assessment, and when it is known that the assessment has nothing to do with the ability or otherwise of the tenant to pay, I think that with a predominant number of professional people and assessors in responsible positions we may get very much higher rents for these private tenemented properties than has
  988
  been calculated. Commenting on the White Paper way back in July, the Glasgow Herald said:
  "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the new system of subsidies will be initially more expensive than the old. The Scottish Office have no figures of the number of tenants likely to qualify for rebates of rent. The White Paper is, therefore, rather sketchy, and it is to be hoped that the Government will not get a shock when they complete their calculations."
  The Glasgow Herald went on to say what we all knew:
  "… the White Paper falls short of the standards expected of a document of its importance."
  The whole Bill falls considerably short of what we require in Scotland. A considerable number of tenants will be submitted to unfairness and hardship by the extension of the means test into housing on a far greater scale than we have ever known. We may see a sudden leap forward in submissions, to meet the date of 1st December. I do not know who wrote that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, or briefed him on it, but how can he tell us how many approvals there will be in 1972? I do not know, unless he is assuming that all the submissions he has—and he does not need to approve them by 1st December under the Bill, because they qualify without being approved—will be approved next year and will give him a good float for 1972. In the longer term, I fear that the housing needs of Scotland will not be met, and the full effect upon Scottish housing, Scottish tenants and relationships within communities will be very serious.
  A very old friend of ours, who spoke from this side and from the back benches on practically every housing Bill, and who knew far more about Scottish housing than most of us was James McInnes, former Member for Glasgow, Central. I remember him characterising a Bill that heralded the same kind of glowing future for Scottish housing with three words, and he was proved right. I would use the same words about the Bill before us: vile, vicious and vindictive.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: We all listened with great interest to a long speech by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who was

  989
  very unfair to my right hon. and hon Friends, particularly when he talked about special treatment for Scotland, ignoring the fact that for municipal rents the basis of the Bill is completely different from that in England and Wales. I believe that the Scottish Office team achieved a major victory in emphasising the special problems of Scotland. I hope that before he continues on that line the right hon. Gentleman will point out some similar matters on which he gained special treatment for Scotland when he was Secretary of State. We should have to look a long way before we found many of them in the housing sector.
  I have a particular interest in the Bill because more than half of my constituents are tenants of municipal or private rented accommodation. I was very interested in the exchange about the views of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and how it now seems that he was in favour of municipalising private rented property. During the General Election campaign he very kindly made an intervention in the domestic affairs of my constituency, which I greatly appreciated, when the Labour candidate asked him whether he would consider municipalising our houses. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the answer he gave then was "No".
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: That is not true. I should like the hon. Gentleman to put that statement in its context. His own Government have let down the tenants in Western Heritable Investment Co. which gets the subsidy from the State. I was asked whether the Francis Committee, to which they would give evidence, would recommend that the subsidy, being a public subsidy, should not count in the fair rent assessment. I told them such evidence was in order, should be given and I hoped acted upon. That was my answer.
  Mr. Taylor: My recollection is different. I will look up the papers and if I have in any way misrepresented what the hon. Gentleman said I will apologise. But if I did misunderstand it, the other gentleman at the meeting also did so, and communicated that misunderstanding to many people in my constituency.
  I certainly welcome the general reorganisation in the Bill of the housing finances of Scotland. All fair-minded
  990
  people in Scotland will accept that the present situation has been grotesquely unfair. It is absolutely unfair that we should have such wide variations in the rents of council houses in neighbouring areas. It is unjust that just because someone happens to live in an area like Bishopbriggs, where rents are relatively high, he should pay much more than is paid for a comparable property in a neighbouring county.
  It has also seemed unfair to me that in my constituency the tenants of Scottish Special Housing Association houses should find that their rents were relatively high, and they were increased with the agreement of the hon. Member for Greenock, while in many cases those rents were much in excess of the rents of neighbouring houses owned by Glasgow Corporation. It is unfair that just because by accident someone is allocated by the corporation to an S.S.H.A. house he should pay so much more in rent over a period of many years than he would pay if he were put into one of the corporation's own houses.
  Clearly, something needs to be done. While the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that he thought that the Bill was wrong, he conveyed the impression, though I am sure that he would not want to, that he believed that the present situation was almost satisfactory and that some local authorities should be able to pursue rent policies that were unreasonable and unfair to the ratepayers in general while other local authorities imposed quite high rents. If we are talking about justice, how does the right hon. Gentleman justify the majority of owner-occupiers and private tenants in many cities, some of them living in slums, paying most, or certainly a very large slice, of the rents of all council tenants irrespective of their income? I do not believe that the present situation can be justified, whether we think that the Bill is the right answer or not.
  I very much welcome the introduction of the general rent rebate. The private tenant in Scotland has been the step-bairn of Scottish housing for far too long. While owner-occupiers in general have the right to a tax concession on their mortgage payments and council tenants in general have the right to a rebate, the private tenants have been in a special

  991
  situation in that they have had no subsidy. It seems only right that they should have the same facilities as other tenants in similar circumstances.
  The third thing I very much welcome as a Glasgow Member is what appears to me to be the prospect of eliminating the special overspill contributions which have been a heavy burden on the Glasgow ratepayers for many years. We cannot house our full population in Glasgow, so we have to enter into overspill agreements. It seems to me that the Bill will lead to the elimination of the overspill contributions, and that will be greatly appreciated in Glasgow.
  Having given, I hope, a very sincere welcome to the Bill in general, I should like to put a few points to and ask a few questions of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development. It has been said that a considerable saving to the ratepayers will result from the new measures. I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that he will advise councils that not all the money should be spent on either reducing the rates or stopping increases but that a fair proportion should be spent on improving the character of housing schemes which are, in some cases, just concrete fortresses and much in need of the basic amenities. We sometimes think of council tenants as being people who, as a result of some kind of lucky dip, get all the benefits of life at a very small rent. Members representing Glasgow constituencies will confirm that many of our great housing areas are not places of that sort and that people have to pay an amount almost equivalent to their rent in order to get into town by bus. In addition the general amenities are not like those that are to be found in the generality of our cities.
  The second point I wish to make relates to the private sector. A rebate system is to be introduced for new tenants of private housing, which means that we shall have sensible rents and that people in need will be helped. However, our real concern is with those whose rents are controlled or who have only recently had their rents regulated. It would be wrong to underestimate the concern caused to a large number of people as a result of the Measure which the hon. Member for Greenock so courageously
  992
  introduced in 1969 which brought a considerable amount of regulation into property previously completely controlled.
  Many people, particularly elderly people living alone, in my constituency have been completely confused and in many cases were caused a lot of unnecessary worry. It is wrong to regard, as some hon. Members opposite seem to do, the private landlord as a kind of commercial vampire who is concerned only with drawing the last ounce of blood from his tenants. On the other hand, it would be equally misleading to think, as some people do, that private landlords are altruistic philanthropists who are concerned only with public service and the good of the community and who are straining at the leash to build exciting new dwellings for working-class families. People who know the situation in Glasgow will agree that neither description is true.
  In this connection, I should like to ask a few questions about the relevance of the Bill to private tenants. First, under the 1969 Act, as consolidated in 1971, any private dwelling in Scotland can be brought within regulation or towards the fair rent system if a certificate is obtained from the local authority showing that it is a house of tolerable standard. It has been indicated that there will be an extension of decontrolling or bringing properties within regulation. Precisely which houses will be involved and how many? It is indicated in Clause 35 that among those excluded from decontrol will be houses which are scheduled as not meeting the tolerable standard laid down in Schedule 2 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act. This would appear, under a different Measure, to restate the present situation. I am confused about this matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say which additional houses are to be decontrolled and in what circumstances? Will it simply be houses which were left out of the previous Bill because they were not tolerable?
  Secondly, how will capital savings, particularly of elderly people, be treated for the purpose of assessing rebates under the Bill? We know what happens about income, but we are all concerned about elderly people who have saved perhaps £1,000 or £1,500 and therefore are excluded from any means-tested benefits.

  993
  How will capital savings be treated under the new system when assessing people's ability to pay rent?
  Thirdly, what is the position of tenants whose rents have been increased under the 1969 Act as consolidated but phased over a period of four years? Will the four-year phasing disappear as a result of the passing of this Bill or will people be entitled to work their way through that phasing, with perhaps an increase in rent from £20 to £100 over four years? Fourthly, will local authority certification disappear entirely? Provision for this was introduced in the 1969 Act for houses which were being decontrolled. Will local authority certification have any purpose in the new system?
  I wish to say a few words about the agreements which can be made as opposed to rents being fixed by the rent officer. It is clearly stated on page 8 of the White Paper that the rent officer can step in when an agreement has been made and stop the agreement from operating if he believes that it is unfair or excessive. What basis is the rent officer to use when judging whether a rent is excessive? Will he follow the criteria in the 1965 Act, which include an element of discounting scarcity, in assessing the right rent, or will he simply think in terms of the free market arrangements? I should appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would tell us what "excessive" means.
  I turn to the question of elderly people living in four-apartment or even five-apartment houses which are controlled perhaps with a rent of £20 or £25 and whose houses are far too large for them. Suppose that they receive social security. If their rents increase substantially as a result of decontrol, elderly people might be told to move from their homes simply because the Health and Social Security Department is not prepared to bear the rent increase. The rent of many people has been paid by the social security offices, even though the house may be too large for the people living in it, because the rent has been controlled. Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had consultations on this point with the Department of Health and Social Security?
  I should like to say a few words on the procedure for letting people know about their rights. We have all had
  994
  people coming to us clutching forms which they have received, saying, "What is this about? Does it mean that my rent will go up by this amount?" People who have lived in controlled flats or houses for many years may receive a paper through the post saying that the landlord proposes to increase the rent, from, say, £20 to £90. Some of the individuals concerned are 80 or 90 years of age. A letter may be sent to them telling them that they can appeal in writing within seven days, but many people do not understand the law or do not bother to send a letter of appeal within the seven-day period. They suffer a great deal of alarm, although the Glasgow rent officers endeavour to tell people the position, and I pay tribute to them for that.
  Dr. Miller: Like many of us on this side of the House, the hon. Gentleman seems to be more concerned about the number of houses built in Scotland rather than the financial provision for housing. Is he expressing disquiet about the Bill? If he is not, will he estimate how many more houses will be built in Scotland as a result of the Bill if it becomes an Act?
  Mr. Taylor: I should not like to make an estimate of the extra number of houses which will be built as a result of the Bill. I am not in a position to make such an estimate. However, the Bill will bring justice into a situation in which there is a great deal of injustice, and that can only be to the good. It will also create new cash resources with which houses will he built. I do not look upon this Bill as directly a proposal to build more houses. I think that other measures need to be taken to increase the number of houses built. I am sure those measures will be taken. I certainly hope they will be. However, I look upon this Bill as basically a means of enabling more houses to be built. That it will directly build more houses has not been specifically an argument put forward by those sponsoring or supporting the Bill.
  Finally I would ask that it may be possible for rent officers to have in their offices someone suitably qualified to deal with welfare problems to explain to anyone receiving, for the first time, perhaps, a notice of increase in rent and who, perhaps, has been living in a controlled house for 20 or 30 years, what the protections and safeguards are. I

  995
  suggest that someone should call on the tenant to discuss the notice with the tenant before any notice of this sort is issued and to explain what the protections are—for example, that the landlord's figure is not necessarily the final one, that the rent officer has determination here and that rebate is available. The forms which people get at present are no answer to their questions.
  That would be a great deal of help to many elderly people and would remove much of the worry which exists for them The person to call from the rent office need not necessarily be a social welfare worker but should be someone suitably qualified, who would call round on any tenant who for the first time is receiving notification that his rent is to be increased. I could show my hon. Friend—I have shown my hon. Friend—some of the notices—
  Mr. Douglas: I am intrigued by the hon. Member's approach to this matter. Is he suggesting that private landlords should get in touch with the social service side of a local authority to communicate with those people that they are going to raise rents or are going to give notice of raising rents?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes. I think that if the hon. Member will consider the matter he will find out that that is precisely what they have to do at the present time. They must notify the rent officer. I am suggesting that the rent officer should have someone suitably qualified in welfare to call around to advise tenants who receive such notices of increased rents.
  It is not enough just to issue a notice. I am sure the hon. Member has seen many of the notices which have been issued. I have a bundle of them from my own constituency. I have one, for example, from a man aged 90 who was told of an increase from £20 to £90 This was a case in which social security was involved and, I think, phasing was involved. The fact is that this gentleman was caused a great deal of anxiety. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, and will appreciate how anxiety is caused in these cases, and I hope that something can be done about it.
  Apart from these things, on which I hope my hon. Friend can give me assurances, either now or in Committee on the
  996
  Bill, I give this Bill a general welcome. I think it will remove injustice where injustice exists and give help where help is needed.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: One thing I cannot do is share the enthusiasm which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has for the Bill. I am not in the least surprised at the reluctance he has shown in trying to estimate the additional number of houses which the Bill will create. His questions on the rent rebates and rent allowances indicate the complicated means test system inherent in the Bill. There are no fewer than 15 pages and two Schedules of small print dealing with rebates and allowances, and they surely belie the claims of the Secretary of State that the rebate system which he is imposing on local authorities is a simple one.
  The Secretary of State this afternoon talked about the stimulus of the Bill because there had been a modest increase in housing approvals this year. If he believes this he is kidding only himself. It is obviously a once-for-all stimulus as local authorities in Scotland are trying to secure the benefits of the existing subsidies which will be phased out once this Bill becomes law.
  I am grateful for this early opportunity of speaking to the debate, and in deference to my many colleagues who wish to participate in it I hope I shall speak reasonably briefly.
  I am opposing the Second Reading of this ill-conceived, doctrinaire, Tory Housing Bill because it is not designed to deal with housing needs in Scotland, but to deal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, with increasing house rents. The effect of this Bill will be to bring misery and hardship to countless thousands of council tenants in Scotland. This is a Measure which is designed to transfer the burden of financing council house building from the rich taxpayer to the broad mass of the lower and middle income groups. It is another example of anomalies being created by the means test mania of this Government.
  The Secretary of State today and on previous occasions has protested strongly

  997
  that the Bill is not designed to save the Government money When he spoke in the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on 27th July he said that
  "had the present system of subsidies continued, it would have escalated into enormous figures which I believe no Government, of any colour could have continued to bear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 27th July, 1971; c. 17.]
  Although the right hon. Gentleman can possibly speak for his own Government he is certainly not entitled to speak for a past or future Labour Government.
  The Secretary of State is also on record as having stated that by 1975 the Government hope to cut their expenditure on housing by £10 million to £20 million. This saving can be achieved only at the expense of the tenants of council houses, and rents will undoubtedly escalate in the next few years. In fact, the whole basis of the Bill is to save money for the Government irrespective of the housing needs of the people of Scoland, for another effect of this Measure will be to reduce the number of new houses being built. The drastic reduction in houses built in Scotland has started already before the Bill becomes effective.
  It is abundantly clear from a reading of this Bill that this Government do not trust the local authorities, for, as usual with every housing Bill which the Tories put on the Statute Book, this Bill results in an increase of power at the centre and diminished power for the local authorities. So much for the great Tory slogan. "Let us trust the people and let us set them free." My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock made great play with that earlier this afternoon.
  Council rents are going to be forced up, for Clauses 28 and 29 clearly set down instructions to the local authorities on the basis of their rent structure, namely, when and by how much council rents must be increased. The effect of the instruction is to raise rents by £24 by May, 1973. In many instances they will be increased on top of increases which have taken place in the last I8 months, and from May, 1973, there will be an annual increase of £26 till the authority's housing revenue account is in balance.
  In Kirkcaldy, it is calculated that it will take from four to five years to balance the housing revenue account. This exercise will produce a standard
  998
  rent in the region of £200 a year. With rates in addition, this will require a weekly payment of rents and rates of between £6 and £7 per week.
  This is, to my mind, an extortionate payment in an area of low wage earners. I shall come to the question of rent rebates later. This is the answer the Government usually trot out. In Burntisland, where hundreds of jobs have been lost and the local shipyard is just ticking over, the story is no less grim, because it is estimated that a balanced housing account may take four years to achieve with a standard rent of £180 a year. The figures are partly guesswork because of the difficulties local authorities have in accurately assessing them.
  Together with rates this will require a correspondingly higher payment of possibly over £6 a week. The Burghs of Buckhaven and Methil and also King-horn have similar tales of woe to tell.
  Mr. Younger: Do the rate figures which the hon. Gentleman has quoted allow for the reduction of rates as a result of the Bill?
  Mr. Gourlay: That is a hypothetical question. It is difficult to assess what the rates will be in two or three years' time. One does not know what additional expenditure will be incurred as the result of other policies of the Government, so it is difficult to give an accurate assessment. I have taken the present rate level, which I do not think will be reduced in two or three years' time but is more likely to be increased. There is a similar grim tale of woe in other burghs in my constituency.
  How can the Government square their instructions to local authorities to raise their rents "at a stroke" with their election promise to reduce prices "at a stroke"? This is another example of the Government breaking faith with the electors, and also with the local authorities. The Bill abolishes subsidies which were promised to local authorities for 60 years. My right hon. Friend referred to Schedule 11, which could almost be described as a Consolidation Act rather than a Schedule to a Bill. True, the subsidies are to be phased out over several years, but the whole burden will be passed on to the tenants through higher rents. Hence the reason for local autho-

  999
  rities being instructed on how to operate the rent rebate scheme, with very limited discretion to vary the conditions being allowed to local authorities.
  Not only is the Government rent rebate scheme a distasteful extension of means testing, but it introduces an entirely new principle into rebate schemes. Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 2 reads:
  "In this Schedule 'minimum weekly rent' means, subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, £1·00 or 40 per cent. of the weekly rent, whichever is the greater."
  That sub-paragraph introduces an entirely new principle. In the majority of council rebate schemes once a rebated rent has been established according to the tenant's income, the rebated rent can be increased only if the tenant's income is increased. But under this sub-paragraph, where 40 per cent. is the greater, the minimum weekly rent will automatically be increased each year under Clause 28, even though the tenant's income remains the same.
  Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 reads:
  "If there is such an alteration in the terms of a rebate scheme or allowance scheme or in the rent as to affect the amount of rebate or allowance to which a tenant is entitled, the authority shall make such alterations as may be appropriate in the amount of his rebate or allowance."
  Anyone reading this paragraph would be correct in assuming that it can only be an alteration in an upward direction, because there is no discretion for the authority to reduce a rebate in such circumstances.
  Under the conditions of granting rebates according to the Bill a further burden is to be put on local authorities. At present any tenant on social security receives practically the whole of his rent and rates from the Ministry. According to my reading of the Bill, now, the local authority has to meet the difference between the actual rent and the rebated rent, and the Ministry will merely meet the balance. This is another crafty move by the Government to shift the burden from the taxpayer to the ratepayer.
  Another aspect of unfairness to local authorities arises from the administration of rent allowances to tenants of private rented houses. The Government will meet the cost of administering the rent allowance scheme as stated in Clause 6(2)(b), but no payment will be made to
  1000
  local authorities for administering the even more massive and costly rebate scheme forced upon them by this unnecessary legislation. It is all right to say that 90 per cent. of the Scottish local authorities at present operate rebate schemes, but those schemes are much simpler than that to be imposed upon them, and only a small proportion of the tenants are affected. Under the Bill 80 to 90 per cent. of the tenants will be covered by this scheme.
  How is the local authority to determine its administrative costs in respect of the rent allowances? Surely the same members of staff will be doing the calculations for the rebate scheme for council houses as are doing the calculations for the rent allowances? Here is another complication. I hope that this is an omission which will be rectified in Committee.
  Although the Government are not prepared to bale out the lame ducks of industry, they will by the introduction of rent allowances be baling out the lame ducks of the property world, with lashings of public dole money to private landlords. Perhaps it is not unnatural that they should look after their friends.
  The high rent policy contained in the Bill is no accident. It is a calculated cold-blooded policy to force council tenants to buy their own house from the speculative builders, once more to enhance the profits of private enterprise. I must warn the Government that this policy is a non-starter in Scotland where, with high unemployment and considerable job insecurity even for those in employment, it is almost impossible for the Scottish artisan to secure a mortgage.
  The basis of this high rent policy is contained in what I describe as the Tory bible, "The Campaign Guide for 1970", which cost me £1 during the Election. The second paragraph on page 373 reads:
  "The application of a fair rent system…"—
  which I know is to be a true rent system in Scotland℄
  "… to council houses should remove the disincentive which prevents some council house tenants from buying their own houses in the open market."
  There, in all its stark nakedness, is the doctrinaire Tory housing policy of this wicked Government which will make the future prospects of those on the housing

  1001
  waiting lists in Scotland bleak and grim in the extreme.
  The Bill will do little to reduce the agony and the misery of those who suffer from the housing problems which have filled a large part of hon. Members' postbags for years. With nearly one million unemployed, many of them skilled building and construction workers, it is absolutely crazy, in fact it is the economics of bedlam, to be paying people unemployment benefit to produce nothing instead of paying them a wage to build the houses which are so badly needed in Scotland. The housing problem will not be solved by the financial juggling of this Bill, but by men pouring concrete and laying bricks which, given the correct subsidy structure which is absent from the Bill, local authorities could do now as they have proved they can do in the past.
  While improvements of older houses are to be welcomed, what is required in Scotland is the maximum building of new houses along with the improvement of old ones. There is only one answer to all the different facets of the housing tragedies which come to our attention almost daily, and that is to build homes and still more homes, with Government aid. But the Bill does not provide sufficient aid for the local authorities to do this.
  It is often said that the age of miracles is not yet past I only hope that a miracle may be realised tonight by this House refusing to give approval to the Bill, because it is a Measure which will miserably fail the homeless people in Scotland.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: One of the delights of being in Opposition, I suppose, is that it is easier to make a rumbustious speech in criticism of a Bill than in praise of it. I feel that the Opposition today have fallen rather below their usual high standard of expressing the righteous indignation that normally comes from them.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was kind enough to refer to me, although his old jibe about second-class citizens fell rather flat. It is not surprising, since it is the umpteenth time he has used it. He will have to try to think of another one. I hope he will not
  1002
  take this unkindly from me. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for so long that think he must have forgotten how to read his speeches. I would advise him to try it next time; he may find that his speech is just as effective although taking rather less time.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Is this an indication that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) will not speak for too long tonight?
  Mr. Galbraith: I think I shall take only my fair time. The 1962 Act, to which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred and for which I was partly responsible, should have been what this Bill now is. It was, if he likes, a second-class Act. But this Bill is going to be a first-class Bill. It is for that reason that I have the greatest pleasure in praising it and in saying to the Government that I think that it is a very good Bill and exactly what the people of Scotland require.
  I shall tell the House why I think this and why I congratulate the Government on having had the guts, when there are so many other problems to handle, which they inherited from the Labour Party, to take on this extremely hot potato. I am so delighted—and this will encourage hon. Gentlemen—that I want to say a kind of Nunc Dimittis:
  "Now lettest thy servant depart in peace."
  Because once this Bill is on the Statute Book a great deal of the heat will go out of politics in Scotland. Indeed, perhaps that is why the Labour Party opposite objects to it. It has almost a built-in interest in the continuance of the present obnoxious housing situation with the privileged classes housed comfortably at public expense while the houses of the poor, with the connivance and almost the encouragement of the State, rapidly degenerate into slums. It is an ideal set-up for the growth of discontent with which, we know, Socialism grows.
  No wonder hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the best possible reason—that of their own self-survival—want to retain the present housing set-up. Yet how fantastically difficult it must be for them, in their heart of hearts, to oppose this Bill, because it is, in essence, a very Socialistic Bill. What it does is to carry a little further the work begun by the

  1003
  Labour Party when they were in power—with this one great difference, that it protects the needy from the harsh effects of implementing the reforms begun by the Labour Party, which was one aspect about which they, unfortunately, neglected to do anything.
  Anybody visiting Earth from outer space and looking at this Bill would say, "It cannot be a Conservative Measure; the market forces are not let loose". For that surely is the hall mark of Conservatism, the letting loose of market forces. It does not operate in this Bill. There is no free-for-all in the housing field. In the private sector what operates is not the law of supply and demand but the fair—not economic rent structure invented by the Labour Party.
  How can that be good with them and bad with us? One realises, of course, that consistency is not a characteristic of the Socialist Party. When in office, it tried to reform industrial relations and tried to join the Common Market but, for the most part, when in opposition, it denied that there was any virtue in any of these things. I suppose one should not be too surprised that its own brain-child of fair shares should now be pronounced unacceptable—a bit of a bastard perhaps.
  It makes its credibility standing remarkably low, especially when there will be available a rent allowance to help anybody who finds the new fair rents above his means. What happens is that we take their device of fair rents and humanise it in a way they never thought of, to ensure that there will be no hardship.
  I shall be referring to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). It did not occur to me that he would not be in his seat—but he has no doubt good reasons for being absent—Ah! Good. I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Greenock and I see that he has come in on cue. In these circumstances it is very sad to find the hon. Gentleman saying, and here I quote from the Glasgow Herald—he has had a bit of it already, and now comes a bit more—that:
  "by bitter experience, highlighted by the hurricane of 1968 we found that some properties had been a dripping roast to landlords be-
  1004
  cause, although rents had been taken, no repairs had been done in this century."
  That is what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon indicated assent.
  Mr. Galbraith: I see the hon. Gentleman agrees. This is the sort of remark one expects from a street corner orator in his first year of operation, or perhaps from the hon. Gentleman in his Glasgow University Union days, but not from an ex-Minister of the Crown who piloted the conception of fair rent through the House. If he thought that these properties were dripping roasts, why did he introduce fair rents for them? He should be strung up on the battlements of Newark Castle as a traitor to his class and party.
  Metaphorically, that is what would happen if there were one word of truth in his allegation of dripping roasts. It is precisely because they were not dripping roasts, because there was not enough money coming from rents to do adequate repairs, that the Labour Party had no alternative, as a responsible party in office, but to introduce fair rent legislation. It was done, and the hon. Gentleman knows this in his heart, not to create dripping roasts but to prevent dripping ceilings. I have nothing but contempt for a party which, in opposition, for the sake of political advantage can turn round and deny the virtue and value to Scotland of its own legislation. It passes my comprehension that it should have such effrontery.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must remember that his party, the Liberals and, to some extent, my own party maintained controlled rents for 50 years. His party decontrolled them in a massive and vicious way in 1957 and it was to meet that dreadful situation that we introduced the 1965 Act.
  Mr. Galbraith: That 1965 Act was an excellent one. All I am objecting to is this nonsensical undergraduate talk about dripping roasts. The hon. Gentleman must grow up and learn to face the facts. He has been out of the Scottish Office too long. He has got out of touch. I hope that he does not come back.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: Did my hon. Friend observe that in the Glasgow

  1005
  Herald leader, dealing with a report of the hon. Gentleman's speech, the heading was "Dr. Mabon's folly".
  Mr. Galbraith: Yes, I noticed that and thought that it was a good description of the speech. In the public housing section the same sort of volte face is visible. In Government, the Labour Party was courageous in its efforts to put up council rents. There was no standstill then, no suggestion that a rise was unreasonable. Yet, in those days one could have said that the way the Socialists did it, they were interested only in financial considerations, in filthy lucre, because they omitted to do anything about rebates comprehensively.
  My right hon. Friend has now put this right. He has introduced into the financial conception of rents the humanitarian conception of rebates about which, in spite of all its talk about how much it feels for the needy—it is always talking about its heart—the Labour Party neglected to do anything. Perhaps this explains its anger, perhaps it thinks it has a kind of prescriptive right to compassion and caring and when it finds the Tories showing concern for the community it is not glad to see the party which in its eyes is always sinning, being repentant. It is filled with an insane jealousy, as if it felt that its clothes had been pinched while it went bathing.
  Its opposition to this Bill is so violent that it must have some sort of psychological basis, and there are many medical men opposite who I hope will look into this matter. Certainly it is not justified on practical grounds because all that we are doing is to help the needy. We are implementing in the housing field the well-known Socialist adage:
  "From each according to his ability"℄
  and that is why some rents according to ability to pay will be a little higher—
  "… to each according to his need."
  And that is why the poor, whether in local authority houses or private houses, will receive the help they need. Surely this is something on which we can agree? No one in the Labour Party is suggesting that houses should be a social service and cost nothing.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Galbraith: Some people are, but I am afraid that I do not count those below the Gangway. I am making my attack on the Opposition Front Bench. If housing has to be paid for, what is the criterion except ability to pay, which is exactly the principle behind this Bill? We can argue about the figures, but that is something for Committee.
  On Second Reading, I would have thought that a Bill whose prime purpose was to introduce fair rents along the lines marked out by the Labour Party, coupled with help to all who need it, irrespective of what sort of house they live in, is just the sort of Bill that we could all have welcomed. That we are not doing so is something I greatly regret. My one consolation is that when this Bill is on the Statute Book the vested interests of housing privilege represented by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his colleagues will be swept aside and everyone will be treated equally and fairly. In future, we shall be able to regard housing less as a doctrinaire problem and more as a practical one of finance, planning and aesthetics which at the end of the century is where the real difficulties lie.
  It is with a wonderful sense of relief that I welcome the Bill. It may produce a bitter party dispute but at least it will be the last of them and will put an end to the arid and sterile debates that we have had on housing in Scotland for the last 50 years. From now on things will never be the same again—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad that remark has been cheered, because it shows that we are all, in our hearts, profoundly grateful to be in at the kill of this obnoxious way of dealing with housing.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: We have heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) talking about Toryism with a human face, but things are seldom what they seem. Skimmed milk masquerades as cream, and that is the sort of thinking which is behind the Bill. I agree with parts of it. However, the Tory Party must be suffering from spiritual amnesia. It says that there should be freedom for local authorities and for the people, but this Bill imposes greater regimation upon the system than I have ever seen in my

  1007
  12 years in this House. This is a Nationalisation of Rent Bill—in the public or private sector. It imposes compulsory rent rebates and it has within it the essence of the nationalisation of rents. It cannot be looked at in any other way. We talk about the Mao and the Cultural Revolution—we are witnessing it in this Bill.
  On page vii of the Bill there are set out the effects on public service manpower. It says:
  "It is likely that the new subsidy system under Part I will require fewer detailed approvals by the Scottish Development Department of proposals by local authorities and there will consequently be some saving in manpower in that Department. At this stage it is not possible to quantify this saving."
  Over the page, however, it says:
  "It will be necessary to employ additional Rent Officers…"
  Paragraph 5 says:
  "The other provisions of the Bill should not require significantly different numbers of local authority staffs than the present arrangements for Exchequer contributions to housing under the existing statutes."
  I want to deal with Part II of the Bill. Here we find the needs and resources test, the means test, all the indignities which will have to be suffered by part of our population. The present system involving a rent rebate scheme is one matter, but a compulsory rebate scheme forces people to reveal their nakedness.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head spoke about:
  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
  I would accept that if it were universally applied but no houses in the private sector were ever built to let, they were built for profit.
  Mr. Galbraith: I confess that I do not understand the hon. Gentleman when he says that private houses were not built for letting but for profit. Can he tell me anything that is done except for profit? Everything one does, whatever work one does, is done for some sort of profit. There must be a return.
  Mr. Buchan: The Sermon on the Mount?
  Mr. Small: I was dealing with the need for shelter and that was never properly
  1008
  recognised under the private system. The needs of the community to be housed properly were dealt with municipally. It was the municipal authorities who came along and built to a good standard.
  Clause 18 makes great use of the word "may", but Clause 19 provides that
  "It shall be the duty of every housing authority to give such publicity to their rebate scheme as the Secretary of State may direct, either generally or in any particular case."
  Again, there is an element of compulsion. The Bill provides that the local authority "shall" publicise.
  Clause 20 provides that
  "It shall be the duty of a landlord of a house let to a private tenant
  (a) to apply to the local authority in whose district the house is situated for information about the allowance scheme made by them"—
  that is, the local authority—
  "and
  (b) on receipt of that information to furnish it to the tenant."
  Failure to do so introduces a new crime into the realm, because, under subsection (3):
  "Any landlord who refuses or wilfully neglects to perform a duty imposed on him by subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50".
  That is regimentation. It is a rather frightening aspect of the compulsory nature of the Bill.
  We are introducing a tribunal aspect in respect of the landlord. He is to be compelled to furnish information to the tenant. There is nothing wrong with that the trouble arises over the way in which it is done. Up till now there has been more or less peaceful co-existence between landlord and tenant. There has been some degree of friction, but there has been mainly peaceful co-existence. We now have the new element of the landlord's being compelled to furnish to the tenant information derived from the local authority in respect of the allowance to the tenant, to which he is not a party.
  I would describe this as social pluralism. The private landlord may sit quietly by and elect his representative, and the allowances and rent rebates in the public sector are automatically transferable to the private sector by the use of this formula.

  1009
  I hope that in Committee we shall be able to ensure that it is purely information that is afforded to the tenant, and that there will be no question of lawyer's letters or anything of that kind. The document should consist merely of information for the benefit of the tenant.
  Clause 20(2) typifies the saying that
  "All men may trudge but none may dance The dancing is for later."
  It provides that
  "The duty imposed on a landlord by subsection (1) above shall be performed in accordance with regulations made by Statutory Instrument by the Secretary of State which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  That is why I say that this provision is for the landlord. It will help the landlord. Speaking as an engineer, I would say that that Clause is the hidden dovetail.
  Subsection (4) deals with the question of persecution. In the old days, people came before the magistrates for selling short weight coal. Now we have in this Clause the pentecostal tongues supporting the city fair. If the person concerned is the director of a company he is equally guilty, or more guilty, because he has had trust placed in him. The director is caught up in terms of any commitment for which he is liable.
  In my view the Bill should become the centrepiece of a new free-admission museum in the centre of Edinburgh.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: To some extent this is proving to be a predictable debate. It is something of a paradox that hon. Members opposite are most angry with us when we do something that they might legitimately expect to do themselves, and that the members of my party are similarly affected.
  The opening passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) seemed to illustrate a general philosophy that could be described as saying that we can nationalise everything but local authorities. That was true of all the hon. Member's speech except his alarming conversion to Clause 20 at the end of the Clause.
  To some extent we can accept the ferocious condemnation of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), if
  1010
  for no other reason than that the very existence of this Measure is a reflection of his own performance in office. But I hope that he and all of us may ascend sufficiently from the personal level, of "Who does better than whom", to remember that for generations we have managed to supply our people with most of the paraphernalia of modern life, but we have not managed to supply everybody with adequate living conditions. The homeless and the slum dwellers will not be impressed if we simply chuck figures at each other. They want houses in which to create sound homes. No more important or more personal social function exists. The only valid yardstick against which to measure the Bill is whether it will help to produce more homes for those who need them in the places they need them and at prices they can afford.
  I believe that the Bill will succeed in its objectives for three main reasons. First, the subsidies are generous. There are the residual subsidy, the housing expenditure subsidy, the high cost subsidy, the rent debate subsidy, the rent allowance subsidy and, finally, the slum clearance subsidy. They all appear to me to be very generous. The slum clearance subsidy must be very generous, since it was the only thing for which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock could find a note of appreciation. Secondly, one valuable aspect of the subsidy is that it seeks to concentrate help in those authorities which need it most; and, thirdly, it seeks to help those individuals who need it most.
  Inevitably, we hear a great deal about means tests. I fail to see how one can hope to be fair in social administration without such a policy. Has not part of the reason for our housing problems in Scotland been the unfairness of the system? The system is unfair to the ratepayer, and does not seem to make a council tenant any happier. It is also unfair to the stewardship of our housing stock since return on investment bears no relation to the value of the investment and the standard declines in consequence.
  It ill becomes right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise since, when they were in power, they raised taxation to an unparalleled extent. They operated all the means tests they could find and justified their policy by talking

  1011
  about redistribution of wealth. That alone as a concept is impossible to achieve without the full implementation of the means test philosophy.
  We are absolutely right to try to redistribute resources by supplying rent rebates to those who need them. If one implements fair rents, then more money may be available for other matters. I wholeheartedly endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) in that there might even be money available to create communities as well as housing estates; to spend on amenities as well as on restrictly functional modern housing and apartment blocks. I am sure we should try to make such a system work; and I am sure that the absolute guarantee on rents will mean much to those concerned by yet another change in housing policy.
  What concerns me personally about the Bill is the total sum involved. Today rate-borne expenditure on housing is £40 million with the Exchequer contributing £55 million. The rate-borne expenditure for 1975–76, as a result of the Bill, is expected to be £15 million to £20 million, with the Exchequer contributing £70 million to £75 million. The financial effect of this highly complicated, and in its way extremely controversial Bill is simply to remove some £20 million to £25 million from rates and to put it on the Exchequer.
  It is not for this reason the Bill is so important. It is drafted as an answer to the diagnosis expressed in paragraph 5 of the White Paper:
  "… at the heart of the problem lie obsolete financial policies, which are no longer either fair or effective."
  I hope that diagnosis is right and that the Bill will inspire all those in housing today to get on with the job of building houses and restoring the old ones which we need. I echo the concern which has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that no attempt has yet been made to quantify the effect of the Bill in terms of houses built. It may be a difficult matter at this stage in which to compute targets and opportunities—
  Mr. William Hannan rose—
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points a little later. What we need in Scotland is more houses ever more attractively and conveniently sited. I hope that this will prove to be the general impact of the Bill. Therefore, we should be stringent in our attention to see that this happens.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: When the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland first said that he intended to introduce an overall rent rebate scheme for the whole of Scotland. I asked him whether it would be based on the best of the existing rent rebate schemes. He replied that he could make no promises. Therefore, I should like to examine the rent rebate scheme in the Bill and to compare it with some of the existing schemes.
  First, it lays down in Schedule 2 a minimum weekly rent of
  "£1 or 40 per cent. of the weekly rent, whichever is the greater".
  Therefore, the lowest it can possibly be is £1. The minimum laid down in the S.S.H.A. scheme, which is probably the most comprehensive scheme operating at the moment, is 35p per week. But the £1 in the Bill will not be the minimum for long because it is obvious that, if rates are pushed up, the figure of 40 per cent. will very quickly overtake the figure of £1. The average rent in my constituency at the end of the five-year period averaged over all the corporation houses has been estimated by the city chamberlain to be well over £4 a week.
  The worst feature of this rent rebate scheme is that rents may increase even for people who enjoy rebates. Such an increase can take place without any increase at all in income. Let us take, for example, a couple with an income of £10 per week and a rent of £1·50 who at present pay 12p under the S.S.H.A. If the rent increases to £4, such a couple, having the same income, will have to pay 72p. As proof of this statement, one has only to turn to page 11 of the White Paper where the tables of rent are set out. The table shows the effect of the scheme on tenants with various financial and family circumstances at different levels of standard rent. I understand it is possible to have a nil rent, although I

  1013
  should like to know what circumstances are envisaged in which anybody would pay a nil rent. Certainly a married couple with an income as low as £10 a week would not have a nil rent.
  Mr. John Brewis: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the opposite page, he will find the matter fully explained.
  Mr. Doig: I will study that later. The income would need to be tiny indeed to qualify for a nil rent. The couple on £10 per week gross income at the end of the five-year period, if the rent goes up to £4, will be paying some 72p.
  If we compare the situation with the S.S.H.A. system, we find a number of anomalies. Let us again take the married couple with no children whose income is £10 a week. Under that scheme, if their rent is £1·50, they start off at 12p. When the rent goes up, so does the amount they pay—even though their income is only £10 per week. Under the S.S.H.A. scheme, with the same income, they would pay 57p regardless of how much the rent rises over the next five years.
  Let us take another example involving a married couple on £20 a week. If their rent was £1·50, then they would pay a sum of £1·50. If the rent goes up to £4 a week, they will have to pay £2·70. Under the existing S.S.H.A. scheme, such a souple would pay only £2·17 third example is of the couple earning £25 a week and paying a rent of £1·50. If the rent goes up to £4, as it will, although their income will not increase, their rent will go up to 0·55, a substantial increase.
  From those examples it will be seen that there is something wrong with the principle on which the scheme is based. It is certainly different from any scheme that I know and different from the expert advice given to the Government. The Chairman of the S.S.H.A. recently wrote a letter to his tenants and one part, heavily underlined in the Brownlie Report, says:
  "I would stress that those of you who are in receipt of a rebate will find that your rent remains unchanged when the rent goes up."
  The Dundee Corporation scheme operates similarly, so that rebated rents do not change provided that income does not change, regardless of how much the gross rent increases.
  1014
  The Brownlie Report says:
  "Tenants receiving rebate will not therefore be affected at all by any increases in standard rents, though what they will pay will, of course, be affected by any change in their own circumstances."
  The Brownlie Report was authorised and presumably paid for by the Government and it says that once a rebated rent has been fixed, it will not be increased if there is no increase in income. The chairman of the S.S.H.A. takes the same view, and so does every other scheme that I know. Strangely enough, even the Secretary of State has taken that view. During the debate on the reform of housing finance in Scotland, he said:
  "It is clearly desirable to have a standard scheme combining the best features of such schemes."
  The scheme proposed in the Bill is contrary to all known existing schemes. Plainly, in all fairness the Government should reconsider it in principle.
  In the S.S.H.A. scheme, if a son or daughter is earning and living with the family and is over 20, there is an increase of 25p a week in the rent. Under the Bill, that will be increased to £1·50. Under the S.S.H.A. scheme, if a wife is earning, the rent is increased by 25p a week. Under the Bill, the wife's full earnings will be added, less the first £2·50. In almost every respect the proposed scheme is far worse than existing schemes. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he wants a scheme that is fair and as good as existing schemes when this is bad in principle, worse than existing schemes, contrary to the advice of all the experts and contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman himself said when in that debate he said:
  "… rents will increase only for those who can afford the increase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 27th July, 1971; c. 6–8.]
  If it is now calculated that someone can afford a rebated rent of only £1·50, how can it be fair to ask him to pay £4 a week on the same income? That must clearly be wrong and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the good sense to reconsider it.
  What will be the effect of rebates for the tenants of private houses? As an excuse for taking rebates from council tenants it is said that to do so will relieve the burden on other ratepayers. What

  1015
  burden will be relieved if private tenancy rents are allowed to go up and rebates are paid to private tenants? I do not believe that anyone would be so wildly imaginative as to suggest that the effect would be to bring rents down. Because of the bad condition of many private houses, many landlords already find it difficult to get any rent at all. But if rebates are offered, people will be prepared to pay more.
  That will not relieve the ratepayers, but it will subsidise owners of private property who, nine times out of ten, have done nothing to improve it for many years. Those landlords will be subsidised at the expense of the ratepayers, unless there is strict control over the rents of old houses and other safeguards on rebates for the tenants of private houses.
  The White Paper says that home ownership is being encouraged and helped. That is certainly true. The Secretary of State spoke about £7 million for owner-occupiers and £70 million for council tenants, but the former figure includes the amount allowed to owner-occupiers in what is known as the millionaires' square mile of Dundee. Nobody would suggest that they require rebates.
  The people to be considered are the young couples looking for a house when they get married. They have two alternatives. They may apply to get a council house, for which they will have to pay a high rent, or they may buy a house. To do so they will have to struggle and to stint themselves for many years, because normally a house bought by such a young couple will be paid for over at least 25 years. They will have to put down a considerable sum as an advance and to meet legal fees and so on. On a house costing £5,000, say, they will have to scrape together about £1,000 and borrow £4,000. The value of that house will increase by more than 60 per cent. in ten years, which for them is a form of saving even if they have to struggle. They will get a tax relief of £80 a year.
  Many people doubted my figures when I quoted my own case. I used to be a council house tenant and I got a subsidy of £38 a year. When I became an owner-occupier I got a subsidy of £100.
  1016
  Apparently hon. Gentlemen opposite approve of the £100 a year subsidy because it is called a tax rebate, but they do not approve of the £38 a year subsidy because it is a council house tenant subsidy.
  Mr. Galbraith: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that, as the owner of a private house, he is responsible for its upkeep, whereas, as a council tenant, he has no such responsibility?
  Mr. Doig: I have certainly considered that angle. I have also considered many other angles. I am pointing out that in the past that figure was doubted. In case anybody still doubts it, I have brought some further evidence.
  The Cumbernauld Development Corporation, when I visited it back in 1964, issued this document to everybody who came along. It sets out what people can get. On a house costing £4,000 one can get tax relief of £89 a year. On a house costing £4,475 one can get tax relief of £99 a year. It gives all the figures. It is here if anyone wants to examine it. That was in 1964. It will be much bigger now.
  If there are any further doubts about it, I suggest that we look at the Government's Option Mortgage Scheme. That also sets out how much it is worth. It is worth considerably more than I suggested. This will stand up to any examination if anybody doubts it. The subsidy, in the form of tax relief, which goes to an owner-occupier is greater than the subsidy which goes to a council house tenant. There is no means test for the tax relief or interest reduction. It is given regardless of means. That is not so with the council house tenant.
  If a wealthy man wants an improvement grant he can get it. In some cases wealthy firms, as I found out when I was on the Dundee Corporation, were given improvement grants. Some of these firms had far more money than the Dundee Corporation. One was the Imperial Tobacco Company. When we examine this situation we realise how farcical the Government's whole philosophy becomes. They have got into their head that the council house tenant is pampered.
  A further point to consider is that, as the costs of new houses go up year by year, council tenants find that their rents

  1017
  are increased to help pay for the new, more expensive houses. That does not happen to an owner-occupier. If a man is fortunate enough to buy a house at a low figure, no flatter how much costs increase afterwards for others buying houses, his cost remains the same. So the council house tenant loses out whichever test we apply. Therefore, the excuse put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), that an owner-occupier has to pay for his own repairs, wears a wee bit thin when one examines all the evidence.
  Let us consider again the Tory Rent Act of 1957. That was the worst housing Act to be put on the Statute Book. But this Measure is even worse, so that is really saying something. We were told that the purpose of the 1957 Act was to produce more houses to rent. We were told that speculators would build more houses to rent. Where are they? There is none in Glasgow, there is none in Edinburgh, there is none in Aberdeen and there is one in Dundee. I have not yet found it, but I am told that there is one in Dundee.
  The reasons given for passing vicious legislation never work out in practice. They will not work out in practice in this instance. Far from being justice, as the Government say, there is no justice in this Measure. It is simply hitting at the council tenant all the time. Who are the council tenants? In nine cases out of 10, they are the lower paid workers. These are the people who become council tenants. This is another method of hiding Tory failure to build houses. They always drop the number of houses which are being built. They promise big targets in their election addresses, but they never produce them. So, to hide this fact, they deviate on to something quite different. We find, when we examine the results, that they invariably hit hardest at the poorer sections of the population.
  Consider what the effects will be in a few years. If one-quarter of rent rebates are to be paid by the local authority, imagine how rent rebates will escalate. When rents escalate, as they undoubtedly are doing and will continue to do, this process will be accelerated. They will have to make up the rebates not only on municipal houses, but on privately owned houses. There will be a direct subsidy
  1018
  to the owners of antiquated properties who have done very little to look after them. This is what the Bill proposes. I sincerely hope that it will never reach the Statute Book.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: Unike the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I welcome the Bill almost without reservation. I have one small reservation to which I shall come later.
  The Bill is compounded of compassion, on the one hand, and common sense on the other—two qualities which should characterise all Tory policy. The compassion is absolutely undeniable, because, contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, West, private tenants in rented accommodation are poorer on average than council house tenants. It is no use the hon. Member for Dundee, West saying that council house tenants are always the poorer section of the community. The figures show that the average yearly income of those private tenants whom we are hoping to help is £1,100, whereas for council house tenants it is £1,400. Therefore, this seems a clear act of compassion in assisting people who are worse off by £300 a year than the average council house tenant. This is a very large percentage difference.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the hon. Gentleman disclose the source of the information which he has just given?
  Mr. Sproat: From an Answer to a Parliamentary Question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cares to look at the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in July he will find that these statistics were fairly well bandied about and were not challenged at the time. However, I got these figures in answer to a Parliamentary Question.—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman was there he certainly did not challenge them. In any case, they came in answer Ito a Question. I will certainly withdraw these figures if they are shown to be wrong, but they were not shown to be wrong at the time.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: Are they Scottish figures?
  Mr. Douglas: They were challenged.
  Mr. Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point, will he get to his feet?
  Mr. Douglas: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech. However, he will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) challenged his statistics. I may be wrong.
  Mr. Sproat: I have the quotation here. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the hon. Member for Bothwell challenged me at the time—but on another point. If I remember rightly, he said that 41 per cent. of people in Scotland had a wage of less than £24 a week. I accepted that figure and pointed out that that meant that 59 per cent. had a wage of more than that amount. It was a question of calling the bottle half empty or half full.
  In reply to the question which was called out by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) yes, they are Scottish statistics. Speaking from memory, the difference is that in England the average earnings of council house tenants are £1,420, not £1,400.
  The discrepancy between the earnings of council house tenants is one of the best reasons for introducing the note of justice mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I quote now some British figures: 38 per cent. of council households draw in between £30 and £40 a week; 16 per cent. draw in between £40 and £50; 8 per cent. of council households draw in more than £50 a week. Therefore, almost one in four of all council households has a weekly income of more than £40 a week. It is compassionate to differentiate between the top 25 per cent. and the bottom 25 per cent. We all wish that the bottom 25 per cent. had a greater income, but, as they do not, we should recognise it and try to help those who have the smaller income.
  Although these are British figures, the present differential between average Scottish wages and average English and Welsh wages is not as great as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) illustrated. It is now running at about 4 per cent., less than half what it was a decade ago.
  1020
  I therefore believe, as I have said, that common sense and compassion alike demand that we be selective in the use of the finance which is available for housing. That is exactly what the Bill does. That selectivity is based on the very best of reasons—namely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) said, quoting the old Socialist dictum, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
  The situation today is, first, that more houses are falling into slum conditions; second, existing slums are not being demolished sufficiently quickly; third, people in real need are not receiving help; and, fourth, people not in real need are receiving help. In other words, to encapsulate it, for too long too many council house tenants have been paying too little and for too long too many ratepayers have been paying too much.
  Some of the indignation which has been expressed by hon. Members opposite today and on occasions outside the House is both spurious and synthetic, as so much of what the Bill seeks to do is based upon an analysis which was set out in their own White Paper, "The Housing Programme 1965–70".
  If the analysis that I have mentioned is true of Great Britain in general, it is also true of Scotland in particular. In addition to those British ills, Scotland must bear extra ills because, if there are appalling slums in Great Britain as a whole, Scotland has the worst slums in Great Britain, the worst over-crowding in Great Britain, and the most ludicrous level of rents in Great Britain. On average we in Scotland pay 81p rent less per week than do tenants in England. Thus, a council house tenant pays about 57 per cent. less in rent. It cannot be said that a council house tenant receives 57 per cent. less in wages. In fact, he receives 4 per cent. less in wages. The Bill seeks to put right this great differential.
  Scotland has the worst record of private ownership of the whole of Great Britain. Still only 25 per cent. of Scottish houses are in private hands, as against the figure for England and Wales of 51·6 per cent. Today I was glad to receive an Answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regarding current private building. I congratulate him on the statistics he was able to tell me, showing that

  1021
  32 per cent. of all houses started in the quarter ending 30th September, 1971 were for private owners, as against only 21 per cent. in the quarter ended 30th June, 1970, when we came to power. This increase of over 50 per cent. is greatly to be welcomed.
  None the less, although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the figure of 32 per cent. for Scotland, the comparable figure for Wales is 61 per cent., so we still have a long way to go. Unfortunately, I cannot give the English figure, because the Department has not yet been able to supply it.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Regarding this large increase in percentage of starts, is the 32 per cent. in absolute numbers bigger than the number represented by the 21 per cent. the hon. Gentleman mentioned? Is the percentage increase due to the smaller number of houses built by this Government?
  Mr. Sproat: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer, because I received this statistic only a few minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to table a Question about the numbers of houses. I tabled a Question about the percentages. I am glad that the percentage is rising, but I want it to rise even faster.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to quote statistics in the House and then congratulate his right hon. Friend on an achievement when it is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has no idea what achievement he is congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on. The hon. Gentleman must know what he is talking about before quoting statistics in that way.
  Mr. Sproat: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, if the day ever dawned when I did agree with him, no doubt Aberdeen would be very surprised.
  I greatly welcome the Bill because it can fairly be said to be the most important housing reform of the century and a massive step forward in social justice. My one small reservation concerns the question of furnished private rented accommodation. I wish that it was possible to take furnished accommodation into the scope of the Bill on much the same lines as unfurnished accommodation has been taken in. I
  1022
  raised this point in the Scottish Grand Committee and afterwards I received a letter from my right hon. Friend about it.
  I have looked through the English debates and closely studied the answers which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave to hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) made some sensible points on this question.
  I know that there are difficulties about bringing in furnished accommodation. A number of grounds have been given. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction stated in July that the first ground was that
  "… four out of ten furnished dwellings … involve sharing facilities between landlord and tenant."
  This is almost certainly true. I have spent my entire working life living in private furnished rented accommodation. That is a pretty fair proportion judging from my own experience of sharing facilities. However, this is no reason for rejecting bringing furnished accommodation within the scope of the Bill. It involves no great difficulty. If one has to share a bathroom, a lavatory or a staircase, this is just one of several factors to be weighed in the balance when deciding whether one is prepared to pay the price asked for the accommodation. It is an inconvenience, but there are many other inconveniences which the Bill covers and which are found in unfurnished accommodation.
  Even as we hold this debate secretaries are trudging the streets of London looking at rooms in various houses and weighing in the balance whether the sharing of facilities is worth the price they are asked to pay. If the simplest girl secretary can make such a decision, the Government should be able to find a way to include furnished accommodation in the scope of the Bill.
  The second major argument put forward by my right hon. Friend against my proposition was that
  "… it is difficult to define the difference between letting and lodging."
  I disagree. Speaking entirely as a layman, I think that the difference between lodging and letting is that a lodger is expected to fit into the family arrangements whereas a tenant only does not expect so to fit in. If a landlady knows the difference, it should not be beyond

  1023
  the wit of the Government to articulate the difference.
  In any case, I understand that in Scottish law there is a legal distinction between letting and lodging, which could be brought into play if my right hon. Friend accepted my proposal.
  A third argument against including furnished accommodation was:
  "it is difficult to reach a valuation of structure and furniture."
  It is possible to value the room without the furniture. This could form the basis. But in any case, it is no more difficult to value furniture and its appeal as part of a house than it is to value the paint on the walls or the smallness of the kitchen or the inconvenience of the lavatory. These are all factors to weigh when considering whether to take a flat. Many a weary hour I have spent trudging the streets of London weighing up whether a furnished room with a few sticks of furniture was worth a few shillings a week more than an unfurnished room. It is a simple calculation which hundreds of people make every week. If it is possible for anyone to be in that position, again, surely the Government can legislate about this.
  The last reason that my right hon. Friend put forward was:
  "The population dwelling in furnished accommodation is largely a floating population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1165.]
  I would not necessarily disagree with that, although I should be grateful for a quantified definition of "largely" and indeed of "floating"—when it is taken to mean how quickly a person leaves one set of rooms for another. But certainly I accept that there is a very quick turnover in this market.
  However, surely the Bill could provide that the Clause relating to furnished accommodation would take effect only after three, six or 12 months. One could get rid of the whole question of a floating population in this way. I know that there are other difficulties, like security of tenure and so on, but although these are considerable difficulties, they are not insoluble. I hope that, by the time the Bill goes into Committee, my right hon. Friend will have found a way of getting around this difficulty.
  1024
  My right hon. Friend would be surprised if he knew how many people in my constituency had told me how much they agree with the Bill and its main effects, but how sorry they were that we could not do something for the furnished, privately-rented accommodation section.
  Having said that, I welcome the Bill very much indeed and I am sure that it will make a tremendous contribution to the future social justice and indeed prosperity of Scotland.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State, and, after studying the Bill carefully. I share the very strong views expressed in an excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that this is a violent and vicious Bill. It is also dishonest and possibly dangerous, because it will create a great deal of despair and resentment among the council tenants that it is supposed to assist.
  I should like to draw attention to a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to one by the Under-Secretary of State during the White Paper debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. I have already had the pleasure of correcting the Secretary of State's speech today, and I have all the documents to ensure that there is no doubt about my quotations.
  We are consistently told that the Bill will not save money for the Government. Winding up the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on 29th July the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "As for the general aims of the White Paper I want to make one thing absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday. The object of the White Paper is not to save money on housing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 29th July, 1971, c. 96.]
  How does that square with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the White Paper "New Policies for Public Spending":
  "By the middle of the decade it is expected to lead to a saving in public expenditure on housing by £100-£200 million …"?
  As my right hon. Friend said, the figure for Scotland will probably be £10 million or £20 million.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: Could I deal with that point now, because I have dealt

  1025
  with it before and it may help the hon. Gentleman? What the Chancellor said last year was that if the present system had continued unchanged—I believe that, if hon. Members opposite had formed the Government after the last election, they too would have been looking at changes—it would have led to a very high figure some four or five years ahead. But, because the rate contribution is being decreased, that too means that the figure for total public expenditure will decrease. But that does not mean that the subsidies from the Government are to be reduced—and that is the conclusion which was being reached by hon. Members opposite. I think that I have made it clear today—the figures are in the Financial Memorandum—that the subsidies at present will be increased in total.
  Mr. McElhone: I might be able to accept that and the statement that house building will not decrease if it were not for the statement, quoted in a debate on I8th November, 1969, of the Secretary of State for the Environment who, when in opposition, speaking at a forum in Westminster, said that the building of council houses would be curbed. That is the reason for the Bill. Local authorities will not continue to build at the present rate and there will certainly be a decrease. That is one of my accusations of dishonesty in regard to this Bill.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman again? I have announced this afternoon that the steady downward trend in approvals since 1967—three years before the last Government left office—is now about to be reversed. For the first time since 1967, the approvals are about to go up in the public sector.
  Mr. Ross: Where are the figures to justify that?
  Mr. McElhone: The Secretary of State must be naive. He must be aware that, in Glasgow for instance, a retrograde Tory authority was in power from 1968 to 1971 and was responsible for a reduction in council house building. This was duplicated through most of Scotland. It was only with the upturn in Socialist fortunes at the last municipal elections that a policy of house building has been continued. I am surprised that the Secretary of State should make these
  1026
  interjections, which have no validity at all.
  I said that I regarded the Bill as dangerous. This is because the first result must be an avalanche of wage claims because of the continuing increases in council house rents. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) is not present, since one part of his constituency, the estate of Castle Milk, will resent this Bill very much.
  The Government have not considered the social consequences of this expenditure on the housing account. By increasing rents at the pace they intend, they must create real damage to the social structure of many families and throw a burden on the social work departments which are already overworked because of the 141,000 unemployed. Anyone who listened to the social work director of Greenock on Saturday will know the serious implications for the social work departments in Scotland because of the pressure of the many unemployed.
  It will certainly lead to many evictions from council houses. After several years of Tory Administration, when rents were increased year after year, we had a record 2,000 evictions from council house property in the last year of Conservative rule. At the time of the last valuation, council house values in Glasgow rose by 80 per cent. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken this into account when talking of an extra 50p to '75p a week?
  Mr. Brewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that everything he is saying justifies a national rent rebate scheme to prevent the sort of evictions about which he is speaking?
  Mr. McElhone: That is not so. What this Government will learn about housing, as they are learning about industry, is that once it is put on to the open market, tremendous difficulties are created, especially for poorer families. If the Prime Minister had any Christmas cheer he would resuscitate some of the lame ducks that he has recently allowed to die. After all, about 41 per cent. of the Scottish working population is earning £24 a week or less.
  More than 50 per cent. of council tenants in Scotland will be enjoying rebates. This will place a tremendous problem on local authorities, especially if

  1027
  the unemployment figures continue to rise. Indeed, if they rise at their present rate, 100 per cent. of Scotland's population living in council houses will be receiving rent rebates.
  Are hon. Gentlemen opposite aware that families now getting council houses in Glasgow must purchase their own cookers? Prior to 1968 this and similar amenities were provided. A cooker, either a gas or electric model, costs a great deal more in Scotland than in England. The £60 or £70 that must be found for this item must be added to the removal expenses that have to be borne by tenants coming out of a slum property.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to give certain assurances that might help, if only in a small way, to make the Bill more acceptable to my hon. Friends. For example, will he ensure that no local authority is allowed to increase rents unless a 100 per cent. mortgage scheme is available? In other words, because the real purpose of the Bill is to force people out of council property and on to the open market, there must be a guarantee of 100 per cent. mortgages to enable them to become owner-occupiers. At present the vast majority of them are unable to find the 10 per cent. deposit on even a £2,000 house, let alone the money needed to pay the conveyancing charges.
  Because of the "branch factory" economy which has existed in Scotland for so long, resulting in people not having continuity of employment for more than five or six years, building societies are loath to give loans or mortgages. The lack of guarantee of employment will make it extremely difficult for the people affected by the Bill to become owner-occupiers.
  May we have an assurance that the Bill will be so amended that no local authority will be allowed to make rent increases without implementing Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970? I learnt in answer to a Question I tabled to the Secretary of State last week that although it is compulsory for local authorities to build accommodation for disabled persons under the 1970 Act, only three local authorities had so far complied with Section 3 since the Act came into operation. They are Coatbridge, Eyemouth and Inverness.
  1028
  I regret that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart is not in his place because he said that the cutting away of the allowance from exporting authorities of £14 a year for 10 years would be welcomed by Glasgow. That is nonsense. We in Glasgow have the privilege of watching the rebuilding of this great city. But to bring it up to the necessary standard to enter the 21st century means decanting about 200,000 of our population, bringing it down to between 750,000 and 800,000. This is the only way to plan the city with proper density ratios. On the fringe of the city we still have a density of 450 people to the acre, which is second only to Calcutta. We are now adopting proper ratios, due mainly to five-and-a-half years of Labour Government, during which time most of the new houses in my constituency were built, adopting the ratio of between 150 to 160 people to the acre.
  This means exporting people. If there will not be fixed agreements between exporting and receiving authorities, the most desirable receiving authorities will be able to hold a city like Glasgow to ransom, with the result that the overspill scheme will fail. I therefore reject the assertion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart that the cutting back of this allowance will be a boon for Glasgow. It will be nothing of the kind.
  We have heard a lot about the poor property owner and how he is finding it difficult to maintain his property in the face of rising costs. We might accept that, but for certain facts. I was the victim of a vicious letter from the Factors and Property Owners Association when I was a member of the local authority. It said:
  "Mr. McElhone is motivated by a natural prejudice against property owners."
  I wrote back saying "I am." Having been born and bred in an area like the Gorbals, I am bound to be of that view, especially when I recall reports of medical officers of health showing time and again that even the close-mouth did not have the statutory lick of whitewash. In many instances a single flat in this sort of tenement property has been sold for the price that the entire block cost originally.
  The interiors of much of this accommodation was exposed by storm damage

  1029
  in 1968. On that occasion the Labour Government donated £6 million to the property owners of Glasgow. Most of that money will not be returned. It clearly exposed the inefficiency of the repair and maintenance work that should have been carried out by the owners of private property.
  The 1968 storms also exposed the dangers of many of these properties being grossly under-insured, which not only saved the property owners a lot of money but represented a great hazard for the tenants. This and other abuses perpetrated by property owners have been exposed time and again. It was a sad day for many of them when the then Labour Government managed to do something to remedy the results of the iniquitous 1957 Act. The security of tenure which we gave to people in tenanted accommodation proved a real boon to many of my constituents.
  Before people shed crocodile tears for property owners, let them look at the registers and see the thousands of properties that Glasgow Corporation had to demolish at the taxpayers' expense after the owners had been drawing rents on them for half a century or more. When it came to demolishing those properties, the owners absconded. Consider, for example, the part of my constituency that can be described as the greatest property-owning section of the City of Glasgow. Every person in that lodging house had his pockets full of signed deeds, bound in pink ribbon and bought for a penny each. Had it been otherwise, the property owners concerned would have been responsible for the demolition costs. Glasgow ratepayers are owed many thousands of pounds by these absentee landlords. The party opposite has always been the party of loyalties, and those people who complain about the rents must remember that it is only lack of investment that has meant the demise of these proporties.
  What does the Bill give us? It gives us the truth about the party opposite. One truth about hon. Members opposite is their loyalty to their friends. They showed loyalty to their friends in selling the State pubs, which compensated the brewers for their support. They were loyal to friends of their, like Rank, in creating commercial radio, which will
  1030
  prove to be a bonanza. Now they are paying the property owners and speculators who have for so long been their supporters.
  This is a thoroughly bad Bill. It does nothing at all for people in council houses and very little for those in private property. It has been brought in against a background of a very depressed economy. We read last week that the National Commercial Bank has this year allocated a sum of £800,000 in connection with further bankruptcies in Scotland. If that is not an indication of hard times ahead, I do not know what is. If the Secretary of State cares to study the report of the National Food Survey he will find that in Scotland we pay 5 per cent. more for food than is paid in the rest of the United Kingdom. These factors should be taken into account.
  If the right hon. Gentleman persists in pushing through the Bill against the wishes of those on this side, against the wishes of all the local authority people to whom I have spoken, and certainly against the wishes of most council tenants in my area I predict that the cost of the burden on the social work departments will more than outweigh anything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this miserable Government ever attempted to save.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has a constituency which has been notorious in the past for very bad housing, but, as he himself said, he has been much influenced by these historic traditions. He has really not given the Bill a fair consideration. I do not see any reason for his assertion that it will result in a decrease in local authority house building. He says that it will mean difficulties for the lower income groups, but one of its purposes is to help those groups. I think that the difficulty with rents, if there is any, will come higher up the scale, and will affect more the man earning over £25 a week who has, perhaps, two children. He may feel a slight pinch, but even so I do not think that the proportion of earnings paid in rent will exceed 15 per cent. in any case. In looking at overseas examples of rents it is unusual to find a rent of less than about 20 per cent. of wages.

  1031
  I welcome the Bill's new approach to housing. The Labour Party provided increased subsidy in its 1966 housing Measure. The then Government certainly wanted a proportion of those subsidies to be devoted to financing rent rebate schemes but even today the schemes operated by local authorities are patchy, to say the least. I am glad that about 90 per cent. of local authorities have these schemes but, quite frankly, some of the schemes are not very satisfactory. The institution of a national rent rebate scheme will make for fairness between tenants of one local area and another and also for fairness between council tenants and private sector tenants.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) spoke at some length about the rent rebate scheme and I agree that it is a little complicated, but if he looks at the Brownlie Report, which he quoted with approval as suggesting a more favourable rent rebate scheme, he may well find that he is wrong because the allowances there suggested in a model rent rebate scheme are often less favourable than those in the Bill.
  I am not entirely happy that the allowance in the rent rebate scheme is sufficient for a one-parent family, where costs can be pretty big. I am also concerned that a sum of £1·50 is to be deducted for children over 18 in a family, whether or not they are in employment. If, on the other hand, supplementary benefit is paid they get credited with only 65p, so there is a deduction in respect of a child at home who is not bringing in any income. That situation seems to need looking at. Have the figures in the rent rebate scheme been carefully considered with the Supplementary Benefits Commission?
  I welcome many of the new subsidies. They will tend to settle down after the first few years at about 75 per cent. of local authority expenditure. I presume that the remaining 25 per cent. of the amount to be borne by local authorities will be met in part by Government grants. If so, will local authority expenditure, which may well be much heavier in some areas than in others, be taken into account when the equalisation grant is worked out?
  In Scotland we are not adopting for council houses the fair rent system provided
  1032
  for in the English Bill. Instead, we have the rates officer who is, I think, restricted to the private sector in his ascertainment of rents. What happens if the amount of rent of a council house gets out of line with and exceeds the rent of a similar private sector house? In England there is a rent scrutiny committee to deal with that problem.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) approved, in a sotto voce growl, what is being done in slum clearance. We all know that the slums in Scotland are worse than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, Clydeside in 1970 had 7 per cent. of United Kingdom slums for a proportion of about 3·2 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. About 14 per cent. of private sector houses in Clydeside are in the category of slums, as opposed to 7 per cent. overall.
  It is clear also that perfectly good houses in Scotland are becoming slums, and the process is not confined to the private sector. In the pamphlet, "House Management in Scotland, 1967", there are several photographs of well-maintained council estates and other council estates which, through bad environment, neglect, bad fencing and downright vandalism, need to have a great deal more spent on them to prevent them going down into the slum category. I welcome the housing expenditure subsidy, which will make a considerable contribution to expenditure by a local authority exceeding £6 more than the previous year. It gives an excellent opportunity for councils to clear up some of their less desirable council estates. Possibly that will have a snowball effect and the area will improve of its own accord.
  There is also the slum clearance subsidy. Here we should note that in the last few years of the Labour Government the slum clearance programme was dwindling every year. In 1967 it reached a peak at 19,087 dwellings cleared, but every year down to 1970 the number cleared became smaller and smaller, and in that year it was only just over 17,000.
  Mr. William Hannan: Even that was a great deal better than the best that the Conservative Government were doing.
  Mr. Brewis: I said that slum clearance had reached a high point of 19,000 but

  1033
  was going down, and at that rate it will be a long time before the slums are cleared.
  I understand that previously the slum clearance subsidy was attached to the house which was re-erected on the site. I welcome the change in the system which will enable a local authority to get back 75 per cent. of its loan charges incurred not only in clearing the site but also in ancillary expenditure, such as buying small businesses which are often found in such housing areas, and dealing with compensation in other matters like public undertakings, water pipes and so on. The change will be of great help in the slum clearance drive.
  The rent allowance scheme will help to improve houses in the private sector. A landlord's first principle must be to see that the capital value of his property does not deteriorate. But that is exactly what has happend in Scotland. It is not surprising, when the average rent of a private sector house subject to a controlled tenancy is no more than 30p a week. It costs about £5 to get a tradesman to come and do repairs such as putting a slate on a high tenement roof. It has been impossible for the private landlord to do the necessary repairs.
  One omission from the Bill that I regret is the improvement scheme for modernising houses, which has been valuable in the private sector. There has been an excellent take-up lately in the number of improvement grants. If it is the Government's policy to encourage improvement schemes they should see that all the local authorities in Scotland operate them. There are several local authorities in central Scotland, one or two of them Tory-controlled, I am sorry to say, which do not operate the scheme. If it is the Government's desire, as it should be, that the scheme should be operated, they should see that it is done by the local authorities.
  There are other matters that the Government should consider in connection with the scheme. For example, why should they give an improvement grant to someone doing up a holiday home that he will occupy for only a few weeks in the year, when he has a perfectly good home in another part of Scotland'? Government money could be saved by not making grants in such cases.
  1034
  I welcome the Bill. It turns housing finance in Scotland on its head exactly as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said during the General Election campaign it was his intention to do. I am only sorry that the Bill has not had a better welcome and received more understanding from Labour right hon. and hon. Members.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. David Lambie: I thank the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) for drawing attention again to the fact that in Scotland the Bill is taking us towards a true rent situation and that in this respect it differs from the Government's Bill for England and Wales, which goes immediately into the fair rent system.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) congratulated the Secretary of State on achieving this differential between Scotland and England, but the Secretary of State cannot move directly into the fair rent system, as his right hon. Friends have done in England and Wales, because of the political character of the Scottish nation. In England, where the majority of the people live in their own homes, the Government can get away with legislation which is an attack on council tenants and private property tenants. But in Scotland, where the majority of the people live in council houses, that policy would be political dynamite, and the Government are trying to introduce by stealth into Scotland the English system they are afraid to introduce today.
  Therefore, it is not because of the Secretary of State's courage that we have this opportunity to move slowly into the English situation; it is because the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland voted for Labour candidates. I ask the Government to put the matter to the test by allowing only Scottish Members to vote on this purely Scottish Bill tonight, and then it will be defeated by two to one. They will need to bring in their hordes from elsewhere to vote down the will of the Scottish people. We are debating the Bill knowing that we shall be defeated tonight.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) said that he believed that once the Bill is passed it will take the heat out of Scottish politics, because municipal rents have bedevilled

  1035
  Scottish politics for a number of years. But this is only the start of a campaign. The Scottish people will not give up lightly conditions and principles we established 65 years ago on Clydeside when, during the First World War, we had the rent restriction Act. If we are defeated here we shall need to do what the industrial workers have done in connection with other matters and go out on the streets.
  The Government have claimed that this is a very fair, comprehensive Bill, and that it covers all sections of housing. It does not. There are three main housing sectors—council housing, private tenanted property and owner-occupied property. The Bill deals only with council tenants and private tenants. It does not deal with owner-occupiers. It is therefore a piece of class legislation. It is an attack by the Tory Government on tenants in Scotland who vote for Labour candidates. Council house and tenanted areas are represented by Labour Members.
  It makes me sick when I hear an old reactionary like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill head—and I am sorry that he is not present—quoting the Communist philosophy,
  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
  It reminds me of the statement made by the Catholic priest in my constituency, "Beware of the man who carries a big bible, because the bigger the bible the bigger the rogue." I say, "Beware of the arch Tory who quotes Communist philosophy to justify the actions of a Tory Secretary of State."
  The Bill is an attack on people who can least afford to be attacked. The Government have said that it will be a godsend to the private tenant. They say, "We shall increase his rent, but in order not to be too hard on him we shall give him a big rent rebate and the landlord and the tenant will be happy". In Scotland 50,000 houses have controlled rents. In three years those houses will be taken out of the controlled sector and put into the fair rent sector. The average rent of these houses is £16 a year—30p a week. It will be increased out of all proportion to the increases paid by council house tenants.
  The Francis Committee was set up to investigate the working of the Rent Act.
  1036
  Although its remit related solely to England and Wales, it considered the position in Scotland. It said that rent officers in Scotland could not apply the fair rents policy because of low council rents. The tenant in private property has been protected in the past because of low council rents.
  The 50,000 controlled houses are the oldest houses in Scotland. Usually they have an outside toilet, and no hot water or bathroom. They should have been pulled down years ago. They are to be taken out of rent control and put into the fair rents system. Their rents will be settled by the rent assessment committees. I know that these committees were set up by a Labour Government and that they consist of three people—a person representing the landlord, a person representing the tenant and a neutral person. In my experience, all the neutral people are Tories—even those appointed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The committees are loaded against the tenant.
  In three years, the rents of these houses will increase by 400 per cent. The Under-Secretary of State for Development may question that figure, but I refer him to the reply given to a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) relating to a house in his constituency whose controlled rent was £34 a year. The rent fixed by the rent assessment tribunal was £220 a year—an increase of over 400 per cent. This is the situation which will face people in privately rented houses, mainly in the city of Glasgow. Private tenants will be harder hit than municipal tenants.
  The Government say that a rent rebate will be given. But the rebate will not be based on present rents. The Government will say to the tenant, "Your rent is now £5. We shall give you a rebate of £1. Therefore, you will pay £4". But the tenant might have been paying only 30p a week. The average rent of a local authority house in Scotland is £74 a year, or £1·42 a week. According to the Government figures, in 1975–76 the average rent in Scotland will go up to £160, or £3·50 a week. Every council tenant in Scotland will face a doubling of his rent. This will apply throughout the system.
  What will happen to Scottish Special Housing Association tenants? The hon.

  1037
  Member for Glasgow, Cathcart shed crocodile tears about the differences between a person who stays in a Scottish Special Housing Association house and the person who stays in a local authority house. According to the figures, the average rent of a S.S.H.A. house in Scotland is £93·78. In 1975–76 it will have jumped to £20453. S.S.H.A. tenants' rents will double and will be above the average municipal rent.
  The Under-Secretary of State must call a halt to rent increases for S.S.H.A. tenants, in order to be fair to them, until the rents of other tenants reach their level.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman should have made these points to the Labour Government, who doubled rents without introducing any rent rebate scheme. What does the hon. Gentleman say about that?
  Mr. Lambie: I shall leave the people responsible for that policy to answer at the end of the debate. I am answering only for myself.
  The rent structure for the new town of Irvine in my constituency has been the pacesetter for the now rent levels in Scotland. There are rents of £16 a month for four-apartment houses on the large Pennyburn Estate, plus a rate contribution of about £4. In the Irvine new town there are rent levels equivalent to those we shall have in Scotland once we have moved to, not the true rent system, but the fair rent system. In order to be fair to tenants in Pennyburn the Under-Secretary of State must tell the Irvine Development Corporation to call a halt to further increases because its rents are 90p a week above the general level of rents for municipal houses which will operate in Scotland in 1976.
  People in Pennyburn and Irvine will be faced, if this formula is continued, with paying double rents. They will he faced soon with a monthly rent increased to about double what they are paying at present, that is from £16 up to £32. Therefore I am asking the Under-Secretary of State to give an assurance that people who have no protection from the new town corporation will be given some protection.
  I am hurrying along because time is short and I know others would like to speak, but I would like to ask the Gov-
  1038
  ernment why they are not dealing with the owner-occupier. Why do they want to apply their Communist philosophy only to council tenants? Why should not their Communist philosophy apply to owner-occupiers? I propose to give some United Kingdom figures. The Secretary of State, remember, gave Scottish figures. When we go to the Secretary of State about other issues and ask him to consider Scotland he tells us to remember that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. I shall quote United Kingdom figures. What is the position? Owner-occupiers in the United Kingdom get an annual subsidy of £300 million; the council tenants get an annual subsidy of £200 million; the average owner-occupier gets a subsidy of £60 a year in income tax remission; the average council tenant gets a subsidy of £39 per year. If the Government are to be fair, and cut down the subsidy to the council tenants, why do they not do the same to their friends who stay in their own houses, the owner-occupiers?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) quoted figures for 1964. Take the figures today. The present rates of interest are much higher now than they were in 1964. We find that on average for a £4,000 mortgage the owner-occupier now receives £140 back per year in income tax remission. If he covers his mortgage with an endowment on his life he gets another £36, a total subsidy of £176 a year. That is why the total figure is now up to the staggering sum of £300 million. With the open-ended commitment to owner-occupiers, which they now have, that figure will be double what it is at the present moment. I ask the Under-Secretary when he winds up to tell us why the Government are dealing only with council tenants, dealing with tenants only in the rented sector, and not attacking the owner-occupier. Because the owner-occupier is a much more expensive item in housing finance than is either the council tenant or the private tenant.
  This is where my right hon. Friends did not realise the problem and the solution to the problem. If we are to solve the problem we cannot do it by the method which the Government are using or trying to use. We cannot do it by the method which my right hon. Friends tried to use from 1964 to 1970. We can do it only by attacking the cost of money, and

  1039
  the real situation where a local authority building a house costing £5,000 at current rates of interest pays at the end of the loan period £26,788. When we get a situation like that we realise that we cannot solve the problem of house building by paying such rates of interest.
  Mr. Younger: On a loan under the present system the interest is effectively pegged at 4 per cent. That is the point of it.
  Mr. Lambie: I am not arguing that the Labour Government did not peg interest. That is one of the good things they did. What the Under-Secretary does not seem to realise is that I am arguing that, no matter what method we use, paying nearly £27,000 for a £5,000 house must lead to financial disaster.
  I ask the Government to scrap this Bill and to look again at the problem of housing finance and to bring down the rates of interest to 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. If we do that we shall help the owner-occupier, we shall help the council tenant, we shall help the local authority, we shall help the private owner, and help to build all the houses we need; but if we continue to charge at these rates of interest for the construction of houses we shall never solve the problem. I ask the Government to look again at this and to get down to the fundamentals. Only by doing that shall we solve the problem.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I do not wish to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) except to deprecate most strongly the slur he cast on the impartiality and integrity of members of rent tribunals. He did this House a considerable disservice in making those remarks.
  Unlike hon. Members on the Opposition benches, I welcome the Bill if for no other reason than that it will undoubtedly bring about a considerable correction in the imbalance between council house building and private house building. I have long thought that it was nonsense that housing subsidies should be administered as a blanket subsidy for all houses. It will certainly be much fairer to relate the subsidy to the needs of the occupier of the house rather than to the house itself.
  1040
  I well remember the now retired County Treasurer of Banff saying to me many years ago that he could not understand the justification for paying subsidy on a house, when as many as four occupants of the house might be earning, whereas next door the occupier might be living in almost impecunious circumstances. Anything which tends to right that situation is to be welcomed, and I am sure that the Bill will go some way towards doing that.
  The other main reason why I welcome the Bill is that, in spite of what has been said from the Opposition benches, there will be a considerable lessening of the general rate burden in Scotland. A comparison of the rate fund contributions and Government subsidies for new building between the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and Scotland shows that under the present system in the United Kingdom as a whole the rate fund contribution is about 36 per cent. and in Scotland it is about 56 per cent. for the total housing subsidies. This underlines the disparity between council house building and private house building, which the Bill will remedy and so help all ratepayers in the long run.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) spoke about the rent rebate system as it will be applied to tenants of privately-owned unfurnished accommodation. It is extremely important that these tenants should be dealt with fairly. Many of them are elderly and live on a small fixed income. Their small fixed income should be, if not ignored, downgraded, so that they get a fair crack of the whip. Unlike hon. Members on the Opposition benches, I think that the Bill will result in a great deal of improvement being made to such accommodation.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been complaining that rents will go up. So they will in certain cases, that is undeniable. But in my constituency there are 12 housing authorities from which I have had only one letter about the Bill and the White Paper—
  Mr. Douglas: The local authorities have not had time to study the Bill; it was published only on 9th November.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has forestalled what I was about to say. Local authorities have had little time

  1041
  as yet to study the Bill; nevertheless, I have had only one letter since it was published, and that was on a technical matter which I am thankful to say my hon. Friend was able to clear up quickly.
  I am sorry to have to accuse my hon. Friend of parsimony. If he will look at Schedule 2 on pages 64 and 65 of the Bill he will find that the exceptions in the income of a tenant under paragraph 2(g) refer to war disablement pensioners and industrial disablement benefit procedure. I must declare an interest here, because I receive a war disablement pension. The Schedule says that £2 will be disallowed in respect of those items. This smacks of parsimony. Why cannot the whole of the war disablement pension or industrial disablement benefit be taken into account? It is a pretty mean way of looking at things and I hope that, before we get into Committee my right hon. Friend will take another look at this.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) referred to conveyancing and legal charges and I understood that if these came about as a result of changes in the Bill my right hon. Friend said they would be taken care of. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give attention to this.
  I reiterate my support for the Bill and hope that when we get down to it in Committee it will not be a protracted business as some hon. Gentlemen opposite have at least threatened.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall try to be brief, because I recognise that a number of my hon. Friends also wish to speak. In my view, the major assumption behind the Bill and the White Paper is that the housing-problem in Scotland has been solved. That is absolute nonsense. The case being argued by the Government on the basis of the White Paper is that if, equating supply and demand over the whole of Scotland, people would move and adjust themselves to the housing supply situation, then everyone would be happy. That, too, is nonsense. The second assumption relates to freedom of choice, and blithely assumes that because some individuals have freedom of choice as to where they live, this can be extended to all.
  1042
  True, there are certain influences which aid mobility, but Ministers ought to recognise that, for the vast majority of people, where they work determines where they live. Even the owner-occupier has little say in his location or in the design and quality of the property.
  In the White Paper it is said that it is the Government's intention to reform the system of housing finance to ensure that Government assistance is directed to those authorities and tenants in greatest need. But the method, used here is the same parcel as before—direct and indirect taxation, nationally redistributed, and local rates. The Government are selling this Bill and the provisions of the White Paper on the basis of a falsehood. They are selling it to the ratepayers on the basis that the rate burden will be removed. This is not so.
  I am not saying that the Government statements do not show that there will, in major instances, be a 25 per cent. contribution to housing revenue over the whole field from the rates. But the salesmanship techniques relate to abolishing the rate subvention on housing revenue account. That is the sales technique. This is the falsehood. I have got into trouble with my colleagues because I have opposed the subvention of the housing revenue account by the rates because I believe that the rates are a bad way of redistributing income. This Bill continues that. If the Government introduce this Bill without reforming local government finance, which is a major obligation, they are perpetrating a falsehood.
  Mr. Younger: I want to be clear about this. We have not said that we will remove the burden on the ratepayer; we will reduce it.
  Mr. Douglas: That is a short-term consideration. In the long term there is an open-ended commitment, particularly with the subvention to private-tenanted property. I wish I had the time to quote the Government's figures and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will make use of Government statistics when he addresses the House. This open-ended commitment means that the total rate burden—not in percentage terms—can be high.
  The argument against rate subvention revolves round the concept that rates are

  1043
  a regressive form of taxation. I quote from the Green Paper on the reform of local government finance, page 31, paragraph 3.7., which says:
  "If an effective scheme reached up to about the average income, rates would cease to be regressive compared with most other taxes."
  If the Government applied their mind to solving this problem instead of making a vicious attack on local authority tenants, then major opposition to the subvention of the housing revenue account by the rates would be removed.
  I turn to the disincentive nature of the rent rebate scheme. For instance, a man with two children whose wages rise from £20 to £25 loses nearly £1. So much for incentive. The same applies to a man with four children. If he moves from £30 to £40 it costs him £1·30. This is a severe disincentive effect for people trying to get wage increases and it is not conducive to redistributing incomes and ensuring that money goes to those in greatest need.
  The argument about local housing expenditure is repeatedly put forward. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that we will not spend less money on housing in Scotland. If we look at the provisional figures in the public expenditure White Paper for 1970–71, housing expenditure is £230·8 million, the estimate for 1971–72 is £213·2 million and for 1975–76 the estimate is £221 million. That is being spread over a much broader area. It is a sum at constant prices, static over a much broader sphere. If that does not ensure that less houses will be built in Scotland, then the people in local council houses do not have the nous I believe them to have. This Bill is designed firstly to stop the building of local authority houses; secondly to force local authorities to raise rents on the basis of pooled historical cost; thirdly, to force local authorities to sell part of the existing stock of houses; and, fourthly, to create ghettoes, identifying the poor minority in municipal housing. That is what the Bill is designed to do and that is why we will resist it.
  8.50 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: If I had any doubts about supporting the Bill they have been removed by the last two speeches from hon. Members oppo-
  1044
  site. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and my constituent, the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), succeeded in convincing me that they have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. In Scotland, 50 per cent. of the houses are owned by local authorities. If, encouraged by my right hon. Friends, some of these houses can be sold to liberate money for local authorities to build more houses for those who really need the help of local authorities, we shall be doing something to help the people of Scotland.
  The Bill is a far-reaching Measure. At a time when we were seeking a major reorganisation of local government and drastically reducing the number of Scottish housing authorities, I doubted whether we should bring in such far-reaching legislation, but almost all the hon. Members who have attended housing debates during the last 10 years will have seen both main parties trying to find some means of increasing the rents of local authority houses. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have always felt that unless we could devise a system of housing which was fair, with the burdens equally spread among the people of Scotland, anomalies would arise. That feeling has been voiced in this debate by hon. Members who have drawn attention to the much higher rents now being paid in the new towns, and for Scottish Special Housing Association houses, than for houses of other authorities, although in many cases the people concerned are earning the same amount of money.
  An equitable rent rebate scheme, bringing in the private sector, would go a long way towards making housing available to more people in Scotland. That is what my right hon. Friend will be judged upon at the next election. He must stand up to that judgment when he goes to the polls the next time.
  I suggest that we are looking forward to a time of somewhat greater prosperity, in which the increase in rents which has been going on all the time will be more easily met than in the past.
  I was interested to read, in The Times of 30th November, a letter from the Director-General of the Port Authority of Marseilles, who, among other things, said that
  "one newly constructed industrial housing estate that may form a model for others contains 250 houses, with rents of about £7£8

  1045
  a week, each architecturally different from the others and collectively as pleasant and full of character as any traditional village; one might be forgiven for contrasting such an imaginative approach with that of the planners of, say, Cumbernauld or Hemel Hempstead."
  I do not accept that the design of the houses in Marseilles is better than that of the houses in Cumbernauld, which have received high praise.
  Mr. James White: Does the hon. Member accept rents of £7 to £8 a week?
  Sir J. Gilmour: It would appear that people are happy to pay such rents if they have the earnings to enable them to do so. Are we to say that during the next 20 years the only sort of rent that we can see people paying is one of just over £1 a week? I do not think that we are looking forward to that. Local authority tenants often experience difficulty when they wish to move from one local authority house to another in a different area. No doubt this will be eased to a certain extent by the reduction in the number of housing authorities. For example, a man who ends his working life in the Rosyth dockyard may want to retire to a different area, but may find that no housing authority will accept him on its housing list because he has not lived in that area. There is an obvious need for greater mobility in housing and exchange of tenancies between one area and another. I hope that the provisions of the Bill will give an opportunity to do more in this direction than has been done in the past.
  I believe the Bill starts off on the right lines. It is an imaginative way of trying to solve difficulties which we have faced for many years, and I thoroughly support it.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am delighted to have this opportunity of taking part in the debate, even though it is so late in the evening, since I have the pleasure of following the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who happens to be my Member of Parliament.
  I have listened to all the speeches in this debate, with the exception of two. The speeches of hon. Members on the other side of the House might lead one to think that all the people in Scotland are waiting with open arms to welcome
  1046
  the Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Local authority after local authority has described this Bill as the most vicious, vindictive piece of legislation the Government have tried to put on the Statute Book.
  I have only a few minutes at my disposal and wish to speak only in general terms about the Bill. I wish to make two specific points. One concerns the inference that the Bill's provisions will make it easy for local authorities to sell their houses to council tenants. Frankly, this frightens me. I can foresee the day when local authorities include on their application forms a further question which asks the applicant whether he considers that some day he will be in a position to buy the house which is to be rented to him. I shudder to think what will happen if the applicant for a local authority house answers "No" to that question. I believe that one of the impacts of the Bill will be the creation of municipal ghettos all over Scotland and that this will happen if people are honest enough to declare that, in their opinion, they will never be in a position to buy the house which they wish the local authority to allocate to them.
  Secondly, I wish briefly to refer to the plight of the owner-occupier and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about this situation in his reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said that the Bill did not deal with the owner-occupier. I believe that it does deal with them, but rather unconsciously. I foresee that when next we have a property revaluation in Scotland—and it must be remembered that the rent of a property is based on what the rent would be in the open market—a municipal house may be valued as highly as £250 per annum, if it is to be based on the value of a semi-detached or detached bungalow elsewhere. In any future revaluation I foresee valuations being increased by a fantastic amount. Possibly this factor has been ignored, and this point has lacked publicity since the Bill was introduced.
  I do not want to take more time, for I am conscious of the fact that both Front Bench speakers will need their full time to wind up the debate. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, East on having rescued the Government from an embarrassing

  1047
  lack of speakers. I sympathise with them. It is the fault of the Scottish electorate, a fault which, according to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), the Bill will rectify. I do not apologise for congratulating the hon. Member for Fife, East on rescuing the Government, although the Government failed to rescue him on the subject of sugar beet. I had to get that one in, but I know that the Government will accept it in the spirit in which it was given.
  9.0 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We have had a most interesting debate on the housing position in Scotland and particularly on the Bill. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) on their speeches, which consistently have sought to probe the Bill, to criticise it and to discover what is defective in it, which of course has not been difficult.
  Naturally, I expected the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor)—and he did not disappoint me—to make a false allegation at the beginning of his speech and to proceed to ride every horse he could find in the circus in order not to lose any votes anywhere at any time. He is a man for all voters. But even if the horses were running in contrary directions, the little acrobat has done it again. I hope that the electors of Cathcart will look closely at that speech. Perhaps we should circulate it. They will see the nonsense of this kind of contribution.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart relies for more than half his votes on electors who are not house owners, and if the Bill runs its full length and this Parliament runs its full length, he will find himself in an extremely embarrassing position. I predict—and that does not need much bravery—that he will be one of the first casualties at the next election. I do not believe that there are many who would disagree with that prediction. He made a false allegation tonight, as he is prone to do from time to time, and I had to refute at once.
  I shall save the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) until the end, because I enjoy him most of all. He is the landlords' friend without blemish. He has done well for them and
  1048
  I am sorry that they have not made him an honorary member of the factors' and landlords' association of Glasgow, with a tin medal to boot. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made the best of the urban Tory speeches, not that there are many urban Tories. I acquit the county gentlemen, who have their own problems, although I shall touch on the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) a little later. However, they have done their duty. But the three urban Tories have had to carry the heat and burden of the day.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South on pointing out a major defect of the Bill, and he must have caused the Government Front Bench considerable embarrassment. I should like the Under-Secretary to recognise that we want an answer from him tonight to the comments of his hon. Friend. He may be able to ignore our criticisms and our comments—he is prone to do that and we all know it—but I want him to answer fairly and squarely what was said by his hon. Friend, not to promise to send him a letter, but to deal with his excellent argument about furnished tenancies and about the fictitious difference between letting and lodging.
  We recently had a good debate about furnished tenancies and hotel building in London when it was said that we had to face the fact, which both parties have so far failed to face, that we have to do something more about furnished tenancies, about the control of their rents and about security of tenure. We may be asked whether we would describe a furnished tenancy as meaning more than two rooms in a house or perhaps even more than one room in a house, but that is not for me to say tonight. What I am asking the Under-Secretary to accept is that furnished tenancies are common in Scotland and are growing in number, particularly in cities which house students, and they are being exploited.
  This is a problem which has to be considered. It is not just a matter of bringing these tenancies within the fair rent legislation of which we are proud, but that the system should be improved to embrace furnished tenancies. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) must not smile and beam his way out of this argument. The Rent Act, which we established, would have been revised by

  1049
  an amending Bill following the report of the Francis Committee. The hon. Gentleman has done no such thing. He has not even announced that the Government intend to amend the Act.
  Mr. Younger: I did not get the impression that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was very proud of the Rent Act, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman likes to be proud of the Rent Act, even though his party fought against it. Look at the declarations of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and see how he treated that Bill in Committee. I hope that we shall treat this Bill a little more gently than the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames treated our Bill. It is now praised as a great Act. We are not content with that Act of Parliament. We give notice that we wish to amend it either in this Bill or in some other vehicle. The question of furnished tenancies, letting and and lodging, posed by a Tory Member, is one of the central questions to be asked in a debate on housing policy.
  Let me turn to another of his points. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South seemed to suggest that he is not an "as well as" man, but an "instead of" man, like the Government. When I say that, I mean that we want owner-occupied houses as well as council houses, as well as housing association houses, as well as co-ownership houses. In other words, no single house in one sector is exclusive of another house in any other sector.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to give the impression, by the answer which he read out with approval to his Question and the answer which he got on Friday about Wales, that he is more interested in proportions than absolute numbers. If I had been told that the absolute numbers were such that there were more houses for owner-occupation going up and substantially more council houses and that incidentally the proportion has changed, I should accept that he had a point. But when we know that these so-called proportionate answers conceal a falling programme—that cannot be denied I will come to the Secretary of State later—that shows that the Government are not concerned with being "as well as", but only "instead of".
  1050
  I will not go over all the speeches, but many hon. Gentlemen have made it clear in the country that this kind of rent tariff will drive out of council houses all those so-called dreadful people with high incomes who have the cheek to live in them. This is the theme which goes through many of their speeches. I bitterly resent the idea that there should be any attempt by the Government to substitute one house for another.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—I will try to make the case—talked about the differentials in income. Perhaps he should look at "Housing in Clyde-side 1970", published by the Scottish Development Department. It is a very interesting contribution. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) for drawing my attention to some important paragraphs in that document. It says:
  "No individual tenure group has a relative preponderance of any one income group and no individual income group has a relative preponderance of any one tenure group. In short, though income varies between different tenure groups, the most striking point is the wide spread of incomes in each tenure…. Looking first at the Head of Household income, and reading cross-ways, there is a steady rise in the proportion of each group who are owner-occupiers, but with a significant 'jump' at the highest level. For public authority tenants there is a much less clear trend, but again a significant 'jump' at the highest level—this time downwards."
  This is one of the most important comments.
  Mr. Brewis: In the same report the hon. Gentleman will find the words:
  "What is more significant is that the average household weekly net income for public sector tenancies is £21 compared with only £16 in the private sector."
  Has he really read that report?
  Dr. Mabon: First, let us know what we are talking about. These reports, including the reference made by the hon. Gentleman to his Question—he could not remember the date—on 21st April, 1971, have a variation of descriptions. In the Question and in some parts of the report there are references to head of household and to total household income. In some cases there is only one person in the house. In an earlier section the report states:
  "Tenants of privately rented unfurnished dwellings are distinguished by high proportions of one-person households, the elderly and the lowest income groups."
  I admit that it is very arguable.

  1051
  We are completely at sea in trying to judge what the total amount of rent allowance will have to be. If it is true that tenants in privately rented properiy are worse off—I have said that it is arguable—they will require a very high level of rent allowance. That means that one-quarter will be paid for by the ratepayers and the so-called relief of the burden on the rates will not be as sanguine as the figures propounded by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), no doubt faithfully reflecting the figures given to him by his hon. Friends. This is an open-ended, unknown quantity: none of us knows. None of us knows it, because we do not know what the fair rent system will do to controlled houses. We know only that all the rents will rise, because any house that is worth less than £25 is below the tolerable standard and, therefore, cannot qualify to come within the fair rent system.
  The questions of furnished tenancies and of rent allowances to persons in private houses are also critical to the outcome of the Bill.
  There is one important matter not in the Bill, namely a Clause dealing with the Housing Corporation, which is the source of encouragement for co-operative and housing society houses within the United Kingdom. I am sorry to have to tell the House—it is no reflection on the Corporation—that the total of cost-rent and co-ownership schemes approved as at 30th September, 1971, consisted of the following breakdown: for Great Britain, 855 schemes; for Scotland, 38 schemes: for Great Britain. 32,000 units; for Scotland, 1,500 units; of the £160 million committed, given by the last two Parliaments to the Housing Corporation, Scotland got £8 million.
  I am not reflecting on this Government, nor on our Government, nor on the Housing Corporation. I merely say that there is something wrong with Scottish Ministers, Scottish local authorities and Scots generally that we are not promoting housing associations, which in Sweden supply one-third of the dwellings.
  This is a much-neglected section. I give notice that I shall seek, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to introduce a Clause into the Bill to give
  1052
  additional and specific money to the Housing Corporation for Scotland. In addition it must be recognised that housing associations will be in an intolerable situation, because there will be a gap between what they will get on fair rents and what they can get from the Corporation under this Bill.
  The Housing Corporation should be encouraged not to have to go out and find individual building societies to back housing societies; it should be able to ask building societies to lend it the money in toto so that it can lend that money, in turn, to the housing societies.
  This matter has not been sufficiently developed in the Scottish Bill. In the English Bill, much of it has, but some is defective. In the Scottish context it is dreadful that, having done so badly, we then proceed not to do as much as the English.
  In case it be thought that I am being a little pejorative about the "instead of", as against the "as well as", school of housing thought, I want to quote from a non-political body—the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. Page 2 of its memorandum has a section which is headed:
  "The planned increase of private speculative building in Scotland"—
  this is a very political statement, though I am not saying in the least that architects in Scotland are Conservatives—
  "The Committee welcomes this"—
  that is, the planned increase of private speculative building in Scotland—
  "though it is afraid that the pendulum may swing too far and one might have an overdevelopment of private housing with a consequent 'drying up' of local authority building programme, except in slum clearance development areas."
  Surely we can take a verdict from Scottish architects on this Bill, as not being overtly political. Surely that is fair comment—that there is a danger that the Bill may swing the other way and cause this to happen. Then we would be dealing with a Bill about finance, rather than housing. I suspect that we are dealing with such a Bill anyway. However, the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend protest that this is not so, and perhaps they will dwell on this a little more later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) made an excellent

  1053
  speech about rent rebates. Of course we do not oppose them. We made it a condition of many rent rises that there had to be proper rebate systems. The hon. Member for Fife, East forgot to mention that his burgh of St. Andrews has substantially higher rents than many places in Scotland and does not have a rent rebate system at all. No doubt he has pleaded with the town council innumerable times to have a rent rebate system. But it was not always the last Government's fault that there were not 100 per cent. rent rebate schemes. Certain authorities not unfriendly to hon. Gentlemen opposite have resisted such schemes for a long time.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West argued this, he pointed out that, of the rent rebate schemes which we have encouraged—the schemes propounded by the S.S.H.A., which we encouraged, and the schemes which were applied in the new towns, which we encouraged—none has been as bad as this one, at least in one respect, that it is conceivable under this rent rebate system—it is a system that we are talking about—that a man whose income is unchanging over the years and whose rebate continues at the fullest possible extent can yet be asked to pay a higher rent. There is something wrong with a system which has a major defect of that kind. I do not say this lightly. I have been over it as thoroughly as I can and have taken advice, and this is the advice proffered to me.
  Therefore, I give notice that, in Committee, we shall want to go over this. While we may welcome a scheme of rent rebates and do not quarrel with the idea of rent allowances, if this kind of system is to go forward, it must be a first-class rebate system and a first-class allowance system—despite the embarrassments which there will be for the ratepayers of having to protect the system, which means a heavier burden on the rates.
  Turning to the effect on different authorities, I am grateful that the Secretary of State has made available in the Vote Office sample specimen accounts which will be invaluable in our Committee debates. We asked for them last Wednesday and he provided them on Friday. I would recommend every hon. Member to study these documents: they
  1054
  will help us in the work which lies ahead. I accept the Under-Secretary's point that we cannot have any firm figures until we know the position of each authority in May, 1972, but some authorities are making up their minds what they should do at that time.
  For example, I have here the Port Glasgow submission from the town chamberlain to his committee pointing out what will in practice—no "ifs", "and" or "buts"—be the situation. We are told that the amount of subsidy per house in this current year in Port Glasgow is £72—not an unrealistic figure for the rest of Scotland. Next year, when the Bill begins, if it gets the Royal Assent unamended, that £72 will fall by £9 on the existing stock of 4,800 houses, so the amount of subsidy payable, which at present stands at £3I6,927, will fall in the first year to £283,500. That is the amount of subsidy payable to the housing revenue account as on 15th November, 1972—
  Mr. Younger indicated dissent.
  Dr. Mabon: I should be glad to learn that the town chamberlain is wrong and that the Under-Secretary, once again riding high, is right. But we shall be bringing plenty of evidence of this kind to him to discover whether his figures are right or wrong.
  Over the years, the £9 is taken away and then £10 and £10 and £10, until the subsidy, which was nearly £3I7,000, has fallen to £15,750. I cannot see how these authorities can have much confidence in the future of their house-building programmes. The same applies when one looks at the subsidies, for some of them are extinguishable, some do not start straight away and others are problematical, depending on the number of houses and so on.
  Referring to this year, and not any later year, the town chamberlain says:
  "I should like to suggest the following procedure:—The tenants will bear a substantial increase in rates this year, varying from approximately 25p to 60 per week and the arrears for the first six months are therefore considerable. In place of requesting the lump sum from the tenants at November it might be better to collect the full year's increase in rates over the period November, 1971 to May, 1972. At May, 1972 half of the increase would cease and this would be replaced by an increase in rent, making the increase less severe according to the allocation of the increases."

  1055
  That is the sort of practical problem facing a town like Port Glasgow.
  Need I remind the Government of the unemployment rate in this area? Need I tell hon. Gentlemen opposite of the number of people who are in receipt of supplementary benefit? I need not point out that this is an area of high unemployment and low wages. Despite that, these people are facing this year, in the coming few months, this great burden, and councils are having to make these sort of decisions.
  That is not the end of the matter because of the burdens that must be imposed in subsequent years. This is all laid out in the documents and it is clear that people in areas like Port Glasgow face considerable misery. If it were an area of high employment and high wages, the impact would not be as hefty.
  Even if the Bill were right, which it is not, its timing could not be more calamitous. To try to achieve all this in three years is imposing an extraordinarily unfair burden on the people of Scotland, whose wage differential with England is getting wider all the time while the Conservatives are in power. The cost of living is higher in Scotland and there are many reasons why the Scottish economy deserves not to have this burden imposed on it at this time.
  I can only conclude that the Government are blindly doctrinaire in this matter and that the Secretary of State insists on pushing on simply because his colleagues want to have this Measure alongside the English one in moving towards fair rents as quickly as possible. As the Secretary of State is not, in my opinion, a hardhearted man, it is clear that he has been overwhelmed in the Cabinet and has been ordered to push on with this Bill so that certain Tory financial policies, as they call them, can be fulfilled in the next Parliament.
  Having been overwhelmed in that way, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not now talk himself into a position of complete complacency about what is happening in house-building in Scotland. I say this because he made a rather extraordinary attempt earlier to show that the house-building programme in Scotland is advancing greatly. I was surprised at his remarks and I could not understand how he could try to adduce such a case.
  1056
  The housing throughput figure is the most significant one when considering house-building. By April, 1971, the house-building programme in Scotland had fallen by one-seventh compared with June, 1970, and by September it had fallen by one-sixth. Despite that, the right hon. Gentleman said, "There is no need to worry. Look at the number of approvals this month." But he can know about only two months, plus the details for this month, which is only five or six days old. He must, therefore, be counting approvals rushed through to 1st December.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the number was 3,000 and far better than 1970. I agree that 1970 was a bad year for approvals—[Interruption.]—and particularly the second half of that year. But even if there are 3,000 approvals this year, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be 3,000-plus in 1972? He can have no idea what the next nine months—that is, March to December, 1972—will bring. He cannot prophesy that.
  Last time, his complacent remark was based on the statement that 19 authorities in Scotland, covering one-sixth of the population, were reasonably satisfied with their present housing stock. That was not his exact phrase, but I can quote it if I am challenged. I made the riposte by saying that it followed, even if that statement were true, that 214 authorities in Scotland, covering five-sixths of the population, did not answer the questionnaire satisfactorily. In other words, there is still great need for house building there. Yet the right hon. Gentleman today said that the situation was not critical anywhere. I have never heard a more complacent remark.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I never said anything like that. I said that it was no longer necessary for houses to be built as fast as possible everywhere. But I went on to say that there were certain areas where there was still a desperate need to get new housing—but not everywhere. I also pointed out that there were a lot of empty council houses. The Lord Provost pointed out only recently in the newspapers that there were over 1,000 empty houses in his area. And empty houses are no good to anyone.
  Dr. Mabon: We shall examine what the right hon. Gentleman says, and what

  1057
  he said earlier on. I take it that the general tenor of what he says is that there are critical areas—
  Mr. Campbell: Certainly.
  Dr. Mabon: —where house building muts proceed more qucikly than ever before—
  Mr. Campbell: Certainly.
  Dr. Mabon: We will look at the previous text and see where the right hon. Gentleman has managed to get out of gear.
  Even if the Burgh of Galashiels takes up its housing improvement programme the expenditure on 1,000 houses will be made into 500. That is what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) tells me. So the town council even in little Galashiels will have to find 500 new houses in order to secure improvement for tenants living in the presently below-tolerable-standard houses there.
  The house building programme which hon. Members opposite inherited was a rising programme, but it is now falling, and will continue to fall. I cannot understand the obsession of hon. Members opposite with finance at a time when they ought to be obsessed with house building. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) spoke of the alarm that many overspill towns are expressing now that they are not part of a formal overspill scheme. What is to happen to Glasgow overspill? This was the key to the whole Scottish house building programme. Yet it is in danger here because people suddenly believe that overspill no longer matters—certainly in finance, when we know that it is in fact highly critical. Yet all the Government have left to promote overspill are the new towns and the S.S.H.A., both of which are suffering from this Government, as witness the figures. Unfortunately, we no longer get monthly figures during a falling programme but only quarterly figures; and even so they are inadequate. We shall chase hon. Members opposite until we get the situation absolutely right, and on the record.
  The argument advanced by the Government has been that we shall see an increase in subsidies by 1975–76 from
  1058
  £55 million to £70 million, but what will happen after that? The Secretary of State said in the Scottish Grand Committee on 27th July:
  "As I said, it is likely to be increased in the next few years; but, had the present system of subsidies continued, it would have escalated into enormous figures …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 27th July, 1971; c. 17.]
  The right hon. Gentleman does not intend to tolerate those enormous figures, so I suggest that the sum will be nothing like £70 million in later years and that he will bring it down—
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I answered the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone), but I do not think that the hon. Member for Greenock heard the point.
  Dr. Mabon: I heard the right hon. Gentleman when he interrupted my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State cannot copy his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and ride every horse in the circus. His hon. Friend is much more flexible—to put it in an equivocal way—and much more able to perform cartwheels than either the right hon. Gentleman or I, but if the right hon. Gentleman tries to pretend that he means, on the one hand, that subsidies will go on and, on the other, that what he said was not true, I must tell him that he cannot have it both ways.
  We know that in the long term with this Government housing subsidies are going down. We know that house building will go down. It is all quite clear. We know that the criticisms of the rent rebate schemes are quite substantial and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot hide behind the facts and say that the principle, although good, means that any mechanism or method is therefore welcome. Whenever hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite come into power they immediately run to adjust rents.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead is a good example of that, but what is so refreshing about him is that he tells us the absolute truth. His Act of 1962 was quickly succeeded by the 1964 Act, which promised heaven on earth. At least he had the courage—and we associate him with courage—to admit today that his Act did, "Nothing". He used the word.

  1059
  Unfortunately, some of the Tory Acts did something: they caused rents to rise and caused a lot of misery to many people. But they did not build a single new house. The Tories' record in government was appalling, with only two peak years, one of which was due entirely to us. The other occurred in their last desperate effort to save themselves in 1964.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may try to be good book-keepers, but I think that they are proving themselves to be very inefficient in that rôle, as witness their rent allowances and rent rebate proposals, which are completely uncosted. They should be not book-keepers but builders. I much prefer successful builders to inefficient book-keepers, which is exactly what they are.
  I hope that my right hon and hon. Friends will vote down the Bill, with all the strength we have.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), in his engaging way, followed his usual course, based on the belief that with a case that one is not terribly sure of the more noise one makes the more likely one is to carry conviction. The hon. Gentleman does it better than anyone else.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ran out of time, but he completely failed to deal with the point about his municipalisation of houses, which he said he would deal with, the point raised in the strange report under the heading
  "Dr. Mabon's Folly"
  in the Glasgow Herald. He said that he would tell us his policy on municipalisation of privately-owned houses, but unfortunately he did not have time.
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: I was advised through the usual channels that the hon. Gentleman desperately wanted to rise to speak by half-past nine. I am sorry that it is now 9.31. I had to reply to the debate, but I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall dilate on another occasion at whatever length he likes on the proposition I make, which is not in the Bill.
  1060
  If the government would kindly put it is the Bill, I should be glad to debate it.
  Mr. Younger: In that case the hon. Gentleman should not have undertaken to answer it. Perhaps I should present him with a luminous watch for Christmas, and then he can watch the time a bit better.
  We had such a shoal of red herrings today that I began to wonder whether some Labour hon. Members have read the Bill. I have heard the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) good, and I have heard him not very good. Today he was more unconvincing than I ever remember hearing him. I do not know whether that was because he is not sure about the case he is putting forward or whether he just had an off-day. If this is the great Bill that the Opposition think they thoroughly oppose in every respect, the right hon. Gentleman might have managed to do a little more homework and give a little less of the impression of stumbling through his speech and making it up as he went along.
  It is essential to know the background to the Bill to understand the whole question. It simply is not one of the options open to any Government to carry on blindly with the existing system, cross our fingers and just hope that it will work. The existing system was not necessarily wrong when it was introduced, or even four or five years ago, but it has become out of date in the context of modern housing conditions, the desires and wishes of the people who will live in the houses and the needs of the local authorities and those who build the houses. That is why we should be greatly irresponsible if we did not make a major change in the housing subsidy system and the housing system generally.
  It cannot have escaped the notice of hon. Members opposite who must study these things that virtually every report produced by housing experts and people who have studied the housing situation for the past five years and more has referred to the need for a major change. For example, the Cullingworth Report, "Scotland's Older Houses", said at page 76:
  "… the impact of policy must be in a channelling of resource to the areas with the biggest problems….

  1061
  Specific subsidies should be given for the clearance of areas of bad houses."
  It is stated on page 190 of the Francis Report:
  "… it appears to us to be essential (a) that controlled tenancies should be brought into the fair rent system as soon as practicable, and (b) that council rents should be brought up to realistic levels, adequate rent rebates being, of course, made available for tenants in need of them. Failing action on these lines, it seems highly probable that in the next two or three decades the dwindling stock of private rented unfurnished houses in Scotland will virtually disappear."
  Paragraph 15 of the Brownlie Report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee Sub-Committee set up by the Labour Government to look into the question of rent rebates states:
  "We are convinced that the only solution to the problem of how this increased rental income can be obtained is that tenants with higher incomes must be prepared to pay rents in line, or more nearly in line, with what they can afford and that tenants with lower incomes must have their rents suitably graded in accordance with their ability to pay. If some tenants are subsidised unnecessarily, the result is an unfair burden on the taxpayers and ratepayers".
  The Government cannot ignore, and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock if he were in office could not ignore, all this advice given by people by no means biased politically.
  Mr. Ross: An Act was passed while we were in power dealing with the question of improvement. The Francis Committee reported after we left office. What the Government cannot and should not do is to lay down the law to every local authority saying exactly what rents will be and denying them the freedom to make their own judgments.
  Mr. Younger: That is a completely different point. I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of not having implemented the Francis Report. I merely quoted the opinions of independent people. It would be a very foolish Government which ignored those opinions completely.
  As the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock seems to be a bit off-beam concerning references, I should like to quote from his Government's White Paper. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept it as an authoritative document. It is entitled "The Scottish Housing Pro-
  1062
  gramme 1965 to 1970" and was published in November, 1965. It states that the share of housing expenditure met by the local ratepayer
  "has been steadily rising and was of the order of £20 million in 1964–65. It is greatly to the credit of the local authorities that they have continued to build as fast as they have done despite this very heavy burden on the rates. Nevertheless, if they are to be able to carry out the expanded house-building programmes which are essential, it is necessary to ease the rate burden by improving the Exchequer subsidies and by pursuing sensible rent policies."
  It was wonderfully put in the White Paper, but the trouble is that that is not what happened. Far from easing the burden on ratepayers during their period in office, and in spite of what they said in their White Paper, the housing burden on the ratepayer doubled under the Labour Government from £20 million a year, which was described in the White Paper as a "very heavy burden", to £40 million. By contrast, the present Government's policies will, at long last, fulfil the broken pledge of the Labour Government and will more than halve the housing burden on Scottish ratepayers by 1975–76.
  The Labour Government called upon local authorities to ensure that there were reasonable rent levels and adequate rent rebate schemes to avoid hardship and unfairness to local authority tenants. But, in the event, the unfairness to the ratepayer of the policies they pursued is clear. They were not even fair to local authority tenants because, despite the Labour Government's White Paper advocating support for adequate rent rebate schemes to avoid hardship, the system of housing finance we have inherited involves hardship to the neediest of tenants because, despite what the previous Government aimed at, no comprehensive and uniform rent rebate scheme was devised.
  Since the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock put forward examples, perhaps he will allow me to put forward examples which will make the point. Let me take an average family of father and mother and three children and let us see how they will fair under the new system at various income levels. For the purpose of this comparison, I have selected two authorities—one without a rent rebate scheme and the other with a rent rebate scheme.

  1063
  Let us take Airdrie where there is no rent rebate scheme. This family, whatever their income, would have to pay, in full standard rent for a four-apartment house, which is what they would need, between £1 and about £1·35 at the present time. That rent, incidentally, is exactly double what was charged in 1966 at the beginning of the previous Government's term of office.
  Let us turn to the new system. Suppose this family's income to be very low. Suppose it to be £17 per week. No rent at all would be paid in the early years of the new system, and even by 1976 it would be between 35p and 50p a week; that is, less than half their present rent and actually below the rent payable in 1966. Suppose the family has a higher income. Suppose it to be £21 a week. They would pay £1 per week in the first year under the new system, less than that which they are paying now. Even by 1976 they would be paying only between £1·40 and £1·50; that is only about a 25 per cent. rise in five years, compared with the 100 per cent. rise which they had to pay under the previous Government. Suppose their income were to go up to £25 a week. The family would still receive considerable protection. In that case the rent by 1976 would be just over £2 a week, representing in the five years ahead just about the same sort of increase as that which they had in the previous five years under the previous Government.
  That was a family in a burgh without a rent rebate scheme. Let us take an authority with a rent rebate scheme—Lanarkshire County Council. Let us suppose that the same family are living there and let us take them at the low level of income of £17 a week. They would pay at the moment a rebated rent of about £1 a week and in the first year of the new system this would drop to nil. Even after five years, in 1976, they would probably be paying about 50p per week, half of their present rate. If their family income were to go up to £21 per week they would be charged rebated rent of about £1·40. This would drop to about £1 a week in the first year of the new system and probably be only marginally higher at £1·50 by 1976. Even if the income went up to £25, the family would be given considerable protection. They
  1064
  would be paying about £1·50 now and would be paying £2·20 in 1976—and over five years that represents an increase of the order of I5p in weekly rent each year, far less than the maximum increase which is prescribed in the Bill of 50p. No one can say that this is not a highly reasonable, very compassionate and most helpful system to this family.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Naturally one would want to study these figures. The first example was quite extreme. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman this: do these figures mean that if this family do not have a rise in their income in any of these years the Bill will make sure they will pay a higher rent—even if their income remains static? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is what it means?
  Mr. Younger: That is a slightly different point, but it is quite simply answered. We can go into the complete details in Committee, but basically, if the standard rent is £2·50 or below then it is pretty standard, but above that the 40 per cent. rule becomes available, and then it does go up slightly, but the lower income levels are protected, and the higher income levels—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Younger: I ought to get on because I have a lot of questions to answer.
  Mr. Gourlay: I asked a question in my speech and it has not been answered yet.
  Mr. Younger: I hope that I shall answer it. I shall if I have time.
  I suppose I ought to examine what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) was discusing at such length—spiritual amnesia, social pluralism, hidden dovetails and pentecostal tongues—but I leave these on one side and move on to some of the other points raised by other hon. Gentlemen.
  The hon. Member for Greenock asked how submissions before 1st December enable starts in 1972 as well as 1971 to be forecast—
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: I did not say that; I said "approvals".
  Mr. Younger: Basically, it is quite simple. The present arrangements allow submissions made up to 1st December,

  1065
  1971 to be considered for the residual subsidy. At the moment we have a large number of submissions, some of which have been converted into approvals, some of which will be converted into approvals before the end of this year, and a great number of which will be converted into approvals next year.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: A great number—how many?
  Mr. Younger: If I knew, I would have approved them already, or my right hon. Friend would have done so.
  Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman in his time could say what he would have approved in the following year, I should be very surprised. That is what we are discussing here.
  The only thing that is perfectly cleat from all this is that the transitional arrangements in the Bill have been most effective; they have encouraged local authorities to bring forward a large number of submissions now. This will produce a welcome increase in house building and approvals in the years to come. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Greenock managed to get through his whole speech without saying that starts began to decline about two years before he left office. A deliberate and obvious result of that has been a fall in completions. He has failed to give us any reasons for that and has just sat back and criticised the number of completions without admitting that his own actions made it inevitable that this would happen.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's savings mentioned in the White Paper. No breakdown of the Scottish savings was ever given. The figures quoted were Press speculation. No figure, either of £20 million or any other amount, was quoted as savings. These were savings in public expenditure as a whole and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, public expenditure includes expenditure on rates. To the extent that the forecasts represent expenditure on rates there are of course reductions, because the whole purpose is to reduce the burden on the ratepayers—and very welcome it will be to them. The Government contribution in the form of
  1066
  Exchequer subsidies, rent rebate subsidies and all the subsidies in the Bill will not be reduced, and we shall be spending more in the coming years than we have spent in the past. The Financial Memorandum says that there will be a saving in rates but not in Government subsidies.
  The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about average rents in Kilmarnock. To reassure him, I will give him an answer to one of his examples. He quoted a family whose rent, he thought, might go up to £154 a year, approximately £3 a week. I have absolutely no idea and no way of telling whether that figure is correct. I am not saying it is, but on the assumption that the figure is correct, it takes no account of protection from the rent rebate scheme. For example, a typical family with three children, if the rent the right hon. Gentlemen mentioned went up to £154 a year, would pay, in Kilmarnock, 20p per week if the family income was £17, less than £1 a week if the family income was £20 and less than £2 a week if the income was £25. It is quite misleading to suggest that a family in need would have to pay £154. It is just not so.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock mentioned variable minimum rents, the fact that some people with the same income pay different levels of rebated rents. The rebate scheme keeps the balance between the income levels and the amenity of houses but up to the £2·50 standard of rebated rent it goes virtually entirely pro-rata with income. Beyond that level some element will he included in the rebated rent for the amenity of the house in the case of high amenity housing. That element is restricted to 40 per cent. of the standard rent. This is a great improvement on the position today where in many areas less well-off people cannot possibly be allocated better standard housing because there is no rent rebate scheme or else there is an inadequate one. That is what he right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) made an interesting speech covering a great deal that was important. If I may, I will answer most of his points in writing because of the lack of time. [Interruption.] I should like to answer one point which he raised, and which I thought

  1067
  was very important. He asked that savings in the rates should not be used simply to lower rates or to spend on something else but should be spent on council schemes. I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to encourage the raising of standards in council schemes. We have already increased the level of improvement grants in the 1971 Act which will be of great benefit to local authorities in their own schemes as well as of benefit to private owners. The grants are also available for improving surroundings of council schemes and I certainly hope that future savings will be used in this way.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) said that there was no discretion to local authorities to vary rent rebates upwards. May I answer that by saying, "Yes, there is scope to do that in Schedule 2, paragraph 6." It is clear there that local authorities can do this on receipt of information from the tenants that their circumstances have changed. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gourlay rose—
  Mr. Younger: I am sorry, it is rather late. I would like to give way but I must answer some further questions.
  The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) stated that the new system would be unfair to new town tenants. I absolutely disagree. Such tenants will face the same sort of increases as tenants of other local authority houses and will benefit from the protection of the same rebate schemes. They will not, as now, be faced with markedly greater increases than local authority tenants which the previous Government allowed, indeed encouraged.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) asked how anyone could have a nil rent. I will give an example. A married couple with four children whose weekly income was £19 would pay no rent at all if the standard rent was about the Scottish average, at present £74 a year.
  A brief word now about each category of housing we have been discussing, because comments have been made about each of them and they have been completely misleading. First, council houses. To hear hon. Members opposite one
  1068
  would think that everything in the garden at the moment was lovely, that there was no problem at all whereas we know that the problem is that in many cases the majority of the cost of council houses in Scotland is paid for by the public purse in the form of subsidies and—much more important—through the rates. It would be perfectly acceptable if the rates were paid by those who could best afford them, but as we know, many ratepayers are among the lower-paid members of the community and are in this way subsidising people who are better-off. No one can deny that that is grossly unfair and that it is a system which must be put right.
  On the question of privately rented houses—
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Younger: The previous Government—
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Mr. Younger: The previous Government introduced the fair rents scheme. Most hon. Gentlemen opposite say that that was a good idea, and I agree with them. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire does not think that it was a good idea. That fair rents scheme put up the rents without any attempt to introduce a rent allowance scheme. People had to face increases irrespective of income without any help. This Government have introduced, for the first time, rent allowances for which people in privately-rented houses will qualify, and those people will remember this and know what it is worth.
  Several hon. Members said that there was nothing in the Bill about owner-occupied houses. I do not agree with the suggestion that a person in an owner-occupied house is to be regarded as having a subsidy because he is allowed to keep some of the tax that he would otherwise have to pay. I do not consider that that is a subsidy; nor do most people.
  The other thing that must be rembered is that a person who provides his own house and is an owner-occupier is saving the community—the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the public purse—a much larger sum than anything he ever receives by way of a tax rebate.
  I understand that the Opposition intend to vote against the Bill. They

  1069
  have not even put down a reasoned Amendment. I cannot understand why; it means that tonight they will be voting against everything in the Bill from top to bottom. I wonder whether they have worked out what they will be voting against. They will be voting against a unified national rent rebate scheme—a scheme that has been widely called for by people in housing associations, and so on; a scheme that is fair and will not only eliminate hardship from future rent increases but, in many cases, will reduce rent payments for the lower-paid. They will be voting against rent allowances for the tenants of non-council houses who, at the moment, get no help in respect of their rent. I hope that the people will note that the Labour Party is voting against these allowances.
  They will be voting against four new Government subsidies amounting to between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. directed to people and authorities who need them most; they will be voting against the new slum clearance subsidy, wider in scope and more generous than ever before; they will be voting against the new system which will substantially ease the burden on the ratepayers, many of whom find their burdens to be very heavy and many of whom are among the lower paid. They will be voting against a Bill which is realistic in meeting the main needs of housing policy in the 1970s and is deliberately geared to give special extra help to those who are in the greatest need, much of which has been called for by those directly concerned with housing for many years. I do not believe that the Labour Party has ever looked more irrelevant to the needs of Scotland than it looks tonight.
  I hope that hon. Members opposite will bear in mind the reasons why this Bill is necessary. The reason is that the present system, however it has operated in the past and whatever good features it may have, is thoroughly unfair at present in its incidence of cost and in the way it works. Anyone who does not believe it can go to see the housing waiting lists, and can interview the people who are waiting. They will confirm that they are unable to get into the queue. These
  people know that the present system is unfair to them, many of whom have suffered under it for far too long.
  The housing needs of Scotland are changing. The wants and wishes of the people who live in the houses are changing, too. We must respond to this change and to the greater expectations of people for the better housing they want. More and more people are refusing to go into houses that they do not consider to be up to the required standard. We must change with their changing needs. That is one of the main reasons why I hope the House will give a warm Second Reading to the Bill tonight.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym)rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. It is not yet 10 o'clock—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If I decide to accept the Motion for the Closure there can be no point of order.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Lawson(seated and covered): On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. If the Question is put before 10 o'clock and an hon. Member rises to his feet before that time, is he not entitled to be called?
  Mr. Speaker: I can rule on that at once. The Question is put when I decide to accept the Closure before 10 o'clock. If I do so at 9.59, there is not all that much injustice to any hon. Member.
  Mr. Lawson(seated and covered): Will you, Mr. Speaker, refer us to the Standing Order which says so.
  Mr. Speaker: It is Standing Order No. 30.
  Mr. Lawson(seated and covered): I doubt if that is the case.
  The House having divided: Ayes 299, Noes 263.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Archer, Jaffrey (Louth)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Astor, John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Balniel, Lord

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marten, Neil

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mather, Carol

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Bell, Ronald

  Gorst, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torqauy)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Benyon, W.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Blaker, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Body, Richard

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gurden, Harold

  Molyneaux, James

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Money, Ernie

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Monro, Hector

  Boyd Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Braine, Bernard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  More, Jasper

  Bray, Ronald

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Brewis, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Charles

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Murton, Oscar

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bryan, Paul

  Hay, John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Onslow, Cranley

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John

  Channon, Paul

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Peel, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Percival, Ian

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cooke, Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Coombs, Derek

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cooper, A. E.

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cordle, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Costain, A. P.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Critchley, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Jopling, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dean, Paul

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dixon, Piers

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rost, Peter

  Eden, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Royle, Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lambton, Antony

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lane, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Emery, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Farr, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fell, Anthony

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sharples, Richard

  Fidler, Michael

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

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

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Loveridge, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Luce, R. N.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fortescue, Tim

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Foster, Sir John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Fowler, Norman

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Iain

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

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Gardner, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  1072

  1073

  Sutcliffe, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tapsell, Peter

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Waddington, David

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wall, Patrick

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Younger, Hn. George

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Trew, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kerr, Russell

  Albu, Austen

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Allen, Scholefield

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ashley, Jack

  Ellis, Tom

  Leonard, Dick

  Ashton, Joe

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Atkinson, Norman

  Evans, Fred

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ewing, Henry

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lamas, Kenneth

  Baxter, William

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Beaney, Alan

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Foot, Michael

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  McBride, Neil

  Bishop, E. S.

  Forrester, John

  McCann, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McElhone, Frank

  Booth, Albert

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McGuire, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mackie, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Golding, John

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Marsden, F.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamling, William

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Milne, Edward

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, Itchen)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Molloy, William

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moyle, Roland

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  O Malley, Brian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Janner, Greville

  Oram, Bert

  Davies, Denzil (Lanelly)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orbach, Maurice

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orme, Stanley

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Padley, Walter

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dempsey, James

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

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Driberg, Tom

  Judd, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pentland, Norman

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, Ernest G.

  1074

  1075

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Prescott, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Silverman, Julius

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Probert, Arthur

  Small, William

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Rankin, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Wallace, George

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watkins, David

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Weitzman, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Richard, Ivor

  Steel, David

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Roper, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wilson, William (Coventry, E.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Woof, Robert

  Sandelson, Neville

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Tinn, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Tomney, Frank

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

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

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. Joseph Harper

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Just before the Division was taken, Mr. Speaker, you said that it was under Standing Order No. 30 that you had disallowed my earlier point of order. My point of order related to the Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time." I was insisting that, as I understand it, when an hon. Member rises before 10 o'clock and the Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time" is being discussed, he is entitled to be called until 10 o'clock unless the Closure is moved. I was concerned with the Question. "That the Bill be read a Second time." On this basis, I object that Standing Order No. 30 does not apply to the point that I was raising.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry if there were a misunderstanding. In fact, the Patronage Secretary rose to move the Closure, and it was his Motion with which I was dealing. It is my fault if I did not make it clear that I was dealing with the Patronage Secretary's Motion, which was for the Closure. It is a matter for me whether I accept that Motion at 9.59 p.m., 9.58½ p.m. or whatever it is. I accepted
  that Motion at 9.59 p.m. I thought that that was right. It was on that Motion that the decision was taken. I put it twice to the House and eventually no Division was persisted in. I then put the Question to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
  Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order. If it had been made clear to the House that the Closure was being put, the House would have divided on it, whereas the House in fact divided on the Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time." No one—certainly no one on this side of the House—understood that you were in fact putting to the House the Question on the Closure. That was never put at all.
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Next time I will put it much more clearly and loudly.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 299.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES

  [10.14 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Bradley, Tom

  Albu, Austen

  Baxter, William

  Broughton Sir Alfred

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

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

  Allen, Scholefield

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashley, Jack

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Butler Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Booth, Albert

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Padley, Walter

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hunter, Adam

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Coleman, Donald

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pentland, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Prescott, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Probert, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Rankin, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Judd, Frank

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richard, Ivor

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lawson, George

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dempsey, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roper, John

  Doig, Peter

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Leonard, Dick

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Sandelson, Neville

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Ellis, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  English, Michael

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Evans, Fred

  McBride, Neil

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Ewing, Henry

  McCann, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  McGuire, Michael

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackie, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Foley, Maurice

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Foot, Michael

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ford, Ben

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tinn, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marsden, F.

  Tomney, Frank

  Garrett, W. E.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Torney, Tom

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Meacher, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Golding, John

  Mendeison, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Wallace, George

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Molloy, William

  Watkins, David

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weitzman, David

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hamling, William

  Moyle, Roland

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Ronald King

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Harper, Joseph

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  Wool, Robert

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Horam, John

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Astor, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Balniel, Lord

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  1078

  1079

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Benyon, W.

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Biffen, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Blaker, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

  Body, Richard

  Gurden, Harold

  Money, Ernie

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monro, Hector

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  More, Jasper

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Braine, Bernard

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Bray, Ronald

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morrison, Charles

  Brewis, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mudd, David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hay, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bryan, Paul

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Normanton, Tom

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

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Buck, Antony

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Osborn, John

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Channon, Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornby, Richard

  Peel, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Percival, Ian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hunt, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Clegg, Walter

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cockeram, Eric

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Coombs, Derek

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooper A. E.

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Cordle, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Costain, A. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Jopling, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Maj.-Gen. James

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dean, Paul

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  King, Tom (Bridgewater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dixon, Piers

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dodds-Farker, Douglas

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Royle, Anthony

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Knox, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lambton, Antony

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Eden, Sir John

  Lane, David

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Emery, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sharples, Richard

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Fell, Anthony

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

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Longden, Gilbert

  Simeons, Charles

  Fidler, Michael

  Loveridge, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Luce, R. N.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Soref, Harold

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  MacArthur, Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Spence, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  McLaren, Martin

  Sproat, Iain

  Foster, Sir John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stainton, Keith

  Fowler, Norman

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fox, Marcus

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Steel, David

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

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maddan, Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gardner, Edward

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Marten, Neil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mather, Carol

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Goodhart, Philip Goodhew, Victor

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  1080

  1081

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Woodnuit, Mark

  Tilney, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Worsley, Marcus

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Trew, Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Waddington, David

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to introduce a new system of housing subsidies for housing authorities; to provide for rent rebate and rent allowance schemes administered by housing authorities; to make provision as to the housing accounts of local authorities; to amend the law about rents of houses and in particular those subject to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 or provided by housing authorities; and to make other provisions as to housing finance, it is expedient to authorise payments out of money provided by Parliament as follows:—
  1. Housing subsidies for local authorities as follows:—

  A. Residual subsidy that is an annually reducing sum based on

  (1) the Exchequer contributions to which a local authority are entitled for the year 1971–72;

  (2) the further Exchequer contributions to which they would be entitled for that year if houses, in respect of which proposals for their provision were submitted to the Secretary of State before 1st December 1971 for his approval but which were not completed in that year, had been completed in that year;

  (3) the amount of any contribution which a local authority are entitled to receive for the year 1971–72 from another local authority in pursuance of an overspill agreement.

  B. Housing expenditure subsidy, that is the percentage specified below of the increase in expenditure above a specified amount.

  C. High cost subsidy, that is 75 per cent. of the amount by which the average income of a local authority from rents exceeds a specified amount above the average income of all local authorities in Scotland from rents.

  D. Rent rebate subsidy, that is the percentage specified below of an amount determined by reference to a standard amount of rent rebates for unfurnished lettings.

  1082

  E. Rent allowance subsidy, that is the percentage specified below of an amount determined by reference to the granting of a standard amount of rent allowances for unfurnished lettings.

  F. Slum clearance subsidy, that is 75 per cent. of specified expenditure incurred by a local authority in the exercise of their slum clearance functions.

  The said percentages shall be:—

  90 per cent. for the first year.

  Housing expenditure subsidy.

  85 per cent. for the second year.

  Rent rebate subsidy.

  80 per cent. for the third year.

  Rent allowance subsidy.

  75 per cent. for the fourth and subsequent years.

  2. Housing subsidies for development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, which shall be the following four of those for local authorities—

  A. Residual subsidy;

  B. Housing expenditure subsidy;

  C. High cost subsidy;

  D. Rent rebate subsidy;

  except that in the case of the housing expenditure subsidy, the high cost subsidy and rent rebate subsidy the percentage specified for each year shall be 100 per cent.
  3. Such payments (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as 'deficiency payments' as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to the Scottish Special Housing Association in respect of any excess in any year of the total net expenditure (as calculated in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State) incurred by the Association in the provision or improvement of housing accommodation, or in the improvement of the amenities of a predominantly residential area over the sum of the payments made to them under section 16 of the Housing (Financial provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968, section 59(7)(b) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969 and any provisions of the said Act of the present Session (other than a provision for the making of deficiency payments).
  4. Housing subsidies for housing associations or the Housing Corporation as set out below.

  A. Basic residual subsidy, that in an annually reducing sum based on the housing subsidies received for 1971–72.

  B. Special residual subsidy, that is an annually reducing sum based on the housing subsidies which would be receivable for

  1083
  1972–73 or 1973–74 but for the proposed repeal of sections 1 to 12 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968

  C. New building subsidy, that is 90 per cent. or less of the initial deficit incurred on any new building scheme approved by the Secretary of State.

  5. Payments by the Secretary of State—

  A. By way of lump sum payments made instead of certain annual payments under section 92 of the Housing Act 1964 or section 19 or section 48 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 (or section 8 of the Housing (Agricultural
  1084
  Population) (Scotland) Act 1938, section 104 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 or section 4 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1952); or

  B. In discharge of any administrative expenses.

  6. Any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in payments out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.
  And that it is expendient to authorise any payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

  CHROMIC ANHYDRIDE (ANTIDUMPING DUTY)
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move,
  That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 5) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1897), dated 23rd November, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
  This Order, which is made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1969, imposes an anti-dumping duty of £50 per ton on imports of chromic anhydride originating in the U.S.S.R., the duty being chargeable both for the future and, retrospectively, from 24th August, 1971, when these goods were made subject to a provisional charge to antidumping duty of £50 per ton.
  In accordance with normal practice, there is provision for relief under Section 2 of the Act in respect of any imports which are shown to the satisfaction of the Department not to be dumped to the full extent of the duty.
  The anti-dumping action which we have taken follows a thorough investigation by the Department of an application submitted by the British industry for anti-dumping action against imports of this material originating in the U.S.S.R. but being exported to Britain mainly by European merchants holding substantial stocks in Antwerp and Rotterdam.
  Our investigation established that the chromic anhydride was dumped by reference to the price paid for imports of this material from West Germany. The 1969 Act allows us to use this method of assessing dumping in the case of imports from state trading countries when satisfactory information cannot be obtained about their domestic prices.
  We were also satisfied, after a thorough investigation of the position of the British producers by our professional accountants, that the dumping had caused material injury and threatened to cause further material injury to the British industry. In the light of these findings, and after considering representations made to us by importers and users of this material, we concluded that it was in the national interest to impose the duty.
  Question put and agreed to.

  STEEL INDUSTRY (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: I in no way wish to oppose this Statutory Instrument because I learn from the Explanatory Note that it will be helpful to a number of people working in the steel industry. However, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would give a brief explanation of the implications of the regulations so that they may be clear to workers in steel areas such as mine.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I am delighted to respond to that invitation. This Statutory Instrument has two purposes. First, it allows the compensation provisions of the 1967 Act to be applied to persons who become redundant as a result either of the dissolution of the companies or of the formation of the groupings which were the result of the 1969 Act.
  Second, it brings the terms of compensation into line with what is standard practice in all such compensation Instruments for the public sector whereby service with the Crown is not deemed to be service in the Armed Forces but service in any other employ of the Crown. Those two objects are all that the regulations seek to bring about. The first is as a result of legislation since the original nationalisation Act was passed, and the second is merely to bring the recommendations into line with standard practice.
  Question put and agreed to.

  STEEL INDUSTRY (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES)
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Goodhew.]

    BRECONSHIRE AND RADNORSHIRE
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise some matters concerning my constituency. I appreciate that they are of little interest to many hon. Members, but they are certainly of considerable interest to very many people living in mid-Wales.
    It had been my intention to question certain statements made by the Secretary of State for Wales during the course of the Second Reading debate on the Local Government Bill, when he stated that he had conformed with the wishes of the local authorities concerned in the departure of certain areas from the proposed area of Powys and with the wishes of people in those parts. This is patently untrue of all areas, and certain areas have taken exception to that remark. However, I understand that I should be going beyond the rules of order if I were to pursue that subject, as it would be anticipating legislation.
    None the less, in connection with this in a remote way, I feel that it is rather shameful that we should be proceeding with legislation without any indication of how such an area as Powys, as envisaged, should be financed. I hope I am not overstepping the bounds of order in talking about financial provision, because I understand that this has yet to come, and is not part of the existing legislation.
    This is what makes me feel that we cannot rightly in our area comment on the proposals when we are completely in the dark about the financing of the area. The proposed area is of 1,960 square miles and contains a population of 100,000—a new county. It is obvious that this sort of area will need very large injections of central Government finance, but we are totally unaware of anything the Government propose in this direction and thus find it very difficult to comment in any real sense on the proposals.
    The subject of the debate is the future of Breconshire and Radnorshire, and if I talk about the present it will be a useful guide to the future. We had news to-day that a firm in Brynmawr on the southern tip of my constituency proposed to lay
    1088
    off 200 men. This is the kind of tale we have heard far too often of late. It has become a familiar story in South Wales in recent months. We have areas in the southern fringe of Breconshire—Ystradgynlais, Vaynor, Penderyn—suffering the same fate, with unemployment figures well above the national average. So much for the oft-repeated contention of the present Prime Minister before the election that he would reduce unemployment.
    If we move further north we come to the mid-Wales region—an area where we have what we call the growth towns. In this context, I should like to quote what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales said in the Welsh Grand Committee on 28th April of this year. He then said:
    "…I propose to continue with the growth towns policy adopted by the previous Government. But I recognise that as these small towns expand they run into financial problems connected with the provision of essential services. These involve expenditures on the rates which are not recouped by additional rateable values until development takes place some years later. I am considering what additional assistance I can give to the growth towns in this respect. I hope to discuss these problems of mid-Wales and our policies in the area with the mid-Wales Industrial Development Association in the next few weeks. The Association has done great work for mid-Wales and I look forward to a fruitful discussion with them about future measures."
    He also said:
    "I do not think that we should extend the scope of the Development Corporation"—
    the Development Corporation for Newtown—
    "to other new towns. I want the Development Corporation, which has not in fact fully developed itself, to make a good job of Newtown. By doing that it can be an example and talisman for mid-Wales as a whole. The Government's policy certainly is to stimulate growth in the other towns in mid-Wales."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee. 28th April, 1971; c. 13.]
    I ask the House to note the date. Those were fine words indeed. But we are now waiting for some action to follow them.
    What yardstick is the Secretary of State using to measure the success of Newtown? He says that he is waiting to see how successful the Development Corporation is before he sets about doing the same thing in the other towns that have been named. When will he decide? What measure will he use to decide that it has been a successful venture?

    1089
    The right hon. Gentleman admitted in that debate that he will pursue the growth towns policy and that the small towns cannot go it alone. But when does he intend to assist them? Growth is all-important, not simply to provide more jobs but in other respects. If we are to keep a balanced community in the area we must provide a variety of jobs, a variety which has been absent but which has been coming into the area in recent years. Depopulation, although slowing down, is still taking place. Unless we can provide more work of a varied and technical nature, we shall not keep our young people in the area.
    The Secretary of State has said before that the towns are too small to provide essential services. The lack of those services is a further reason why young people leave the area.
    The public transport situation is very serious. The Minister will be well aware of that as he lives in the area. It is easy for him and for me to travel through the constituency in our cars. But let us not ignore the fact that although Radnorshire has the highest density of cars per head of population in Wales there are still far too many people who rely on others for transport. Public transport is virtually non-existent in the county.
    I know that the Minister can say that the Government are continuing the policy of subsidising bus services, and I applaud that policy. The time may well come when we have to consider even further support. He will also say that the Government are contemplating legislation to ease licensing of small vehicles. But I want him to appreciate that the growth of these small towns also plays a part in the matter, because as we get increasing population there we are likely to have increasing use of transport services.
    Further, I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman tonight that the assistance the Government give to the central Wales line will be continued. It is due for review very shortly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can tell us something about it tonight.
    I am getting tired of receiving complaints about television reception throughout the area. This may be thought to be a trivial matter, but, allied to the other difficulties, it accelerates depopulation. The Minister can fairly claim that it is
    1090
    not his responsibility, but what pressure is his right hon. Friend exerting on the appropriate Department to improve the situation? I should like him to think of this problem in the context of the whole rural area. It is a further cause for dissatisfaction among young and old people. I receive many complaints about the installation of telephones. People find it difficult to get a telephone installed in a reasonable time. Some of the concerns which have come to the area have experienced difficulty. Technical representatives who need telephones in their homes have to wait months for this service.
    These services are even more essential in a rural community than they are in an urban community. We have recently experienced the closure of gas showrooms. Again, this may appear to the outsider to be a trivial matter and it may be said that alternative facilities are made available. But each difficulty seems to be the last straw and makes life more difficult for people living in the area. It seems that they are last in the queue for any service. I hear outsiders say what a beautiful part of the country this is and that it is well worth visiting. They say that it is a pleasant area to go to for holidays. I ask them to realise that without the resident population the area would die. We are therefore anxious that the existence of the resident population should be made a little easier.
    Under the proposed Health Service reorganisation the area will be without its own district general hospital, thus forcing people to travel long distances for specialised medical services. I know that a district general hospital cannot be provided for every area, but this is a further difficulty for people living in the area.
    I welcome the principle of the suggested Welsh National Water Development Authority, but I express some disquiet about the region as decided in advance of the Crowther Report. The proposal anticipates that report in proposing the setting up of a regional authority. I note the absence of democratic control of this authority. Many of us in Wales hope that, as a result of the Crowther Report, there will be an elected council for the region. We believe that authorities such as the proposed water development authority should come within democratic control. I am concerned that the interests

    1091
    of the areas which supply water are not safeguarded because they will not be adequately represented on the authority.
    Two parts of my constituency—the Dulas and Senni Valleys—have been under a cloud in recent years. I welcome the Minister's pronouncement which has relieved the minds of people living in the Dulas Valley. I should welcome a statement from him which relieves the minds of people in the Senni Valley. Despite the Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, a water authority is going after the Senni Valley. This is another matter for concern for us—that areas and communities such as these will not have an adequate voice on the new Welsh National Water Authority. I beg the Minister to make a reassuring statement tonight.
    The difficulties of the people I represent will not be made easier by the creation of larger units of local government. I suspect that they will be made more difficult. I am not asking the Minister to forget the Government's legislation on local government reform. I am asking him to tell us that action will be taken in connection with growth towns and to say that the Government will change the direction of their policies as they affect the southern end of my constituency, which suffers from high unemployment. I would not pretend that this is such a problem in mid-Wales. It is a greater question in the southern end, where unemployment is very serious, and we need a change in Government policy. An expansionist policy is needed, and a return to a policy similar to the regional policies of the previous Government. I do not know what success the Minister will have in persuading his right hon. and learned Friend to pursue this, but I think that he must look at this matter very seriously. A growth town policy is so important to mid-Wales. I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to follow up his words with action.
    10.45 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), having been fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has made a speech which has touched on many aspects of an area which he and I both know very
    1092
    well. I happen to be one of his constituents. The only quarrel I have with him is that he has raised so great a number of points that in the short time at my disposal tonight I shall not be able to deal with them all adequately.
    Let me tell him here and now that the questions of telephones and television, important indeed as they are, must go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.
    As to the question of local government reform, although my answer will be short I must come back pretty strongly at him and say, when he refers to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend as being patently untrue, that the hon. Member is unwise to choose words of that kind. I will explain to him why. He is raising the whole question of local government reform, and is questioning the decision about the parts of the southern end of Breconshire which, under the Government's proposals, are to be added to the new county of mid-Glamorgan and Gwent. He opposes this change. He says it flouts local opinion and that the Government have been selective in their treatment of the southern end of the county. In my view the proposals are fair and reasonable and have a large measure of local support.
    The first point to be made is that the recommendation to detach south Breconshire was made by the Local Government Commission for Wales in draft proposals in 1961. It said:
    "From Ystradgynlais in the west to Cefn Coed in the east there is a substantial fringe of Breconshire south of the Brecknock Beacons mountain barrier. The communities concerned are semi-industrial and appear to us to have more in common with their neighbours in Glamorgan than with the rest of Breconshire."
    Indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself referred to them tonight as separate communities. He referred, on the one hand, to the southern industrial fringe, and, on the other, to what he called the mid-Wales area.
    In the final draft proposals in 1963 the Commission left Monmouthshire out of their proposed Powys county, and accordingly extended the same principle to the boundary with Monmouthshire and a proposed boundary on the watershed of the Beacons and the Black Mountains. Under that plan much more of Breconshire would have been taken out of Powys than under our proposals.

    1093
    The whole of Crickhowell Rural District, all of Vaynor and Penderyn Rural District and also Ystradgynlais Rural District—and Brynmawr—would have been taken away, in addition to other areas.
    The Commission also stated:
    "We believe that we have adopted the only really satisfactory way of defining the southern boundary of the Mid-Wales county by following as closely as possible the watersheds of the two mountain ranges—the Beacons and the Black Mountains."
    Mr. Roderick: My point was that it was not the unanimous wish of all the local authorities concerned to leave Powys, in that Crickhowell Rural District is to be split under the proposals. This is opposed both by the rural district council and the parish council and by the populace generally. The Secretary of State mentioned the people, but there has not been a referendum.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was coming to that part in my speech. The Brynmawr Urban District Council strongly supports the inclusion of its district in Gwent. Vaynor Parish Council has said that it wishes to join East Glamorgan. I understand that, on the casting vote of the chairman, Penderyn has decided to support our proposal. Certainly Vaynor and Penderyn Rural District Council accept the Government's proposals, although they would have preferred that Ystradfellte Parish should also be in Glamorgan so that their district was transferred. That leaves Llanelly Parish Council who wish to stay with the rest of Crickhowell Rural District Council and join Powys. But the parish council admits that one of the wards of the parish has a great affinity with Brynmawr and that in that ward there is more sympathy with our proposal.
    I wish to touch further now on the question of the industrial prospects in that area. What I have just said entirely refutes what the hon. Member said about my right hon. Friend's statement.
    The hon. Member mentioned a number of other matters in mid-Wales, including the closure of the mid-Wales line. Under the previous Conservative Administration, after the Beeching Report, this was a line which was spared. Under a previous Labour Government, all the station buildings on that line were knocked down before the Secretary of State decided to stay their hand. I cannot say anything further
    1094
    about the future of this line tonight, but I fully acknowledge the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman and his constituency.
    The hon. Member admitted that, with a population as thin on the ground as that of the mid-Wales area, no administration could honestly say that a district general hospital could be built on the lines we generally understand as a district general hospital. But, although he did not mention it, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been certain additions to hospitals—two lately, and the position is far from stagnant.
    On the question of water supply, the hon. Gentleman commended my right hon. Friend's decision over the Dulas Valley, but left us a little in the air about the future of the Senni Valley. As I have said several times, the position is absolutely clear. The previous Labour Government gave the Usk River Authority power to take borings in the Senni Valley. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I on his behalf, made announcements, we made it clear that the future of the borings in the Senni Valley remained for a period under the discretion of the Usk River Authority with this power given by the previous Secretary of State to them. We made it clear that, should the authority ask for a revocation of that order, this matter would be considered by my right hon. Friend. I hope that what I have said will make it clear that the matter now rests not with the Welsh Office but with the Usk River Authority.
    Let me now deal with some of the matters of industry and employment with which hon. Gentleman and I are concerned. I do not wish to minimise the economic problems of the area, particularly on a day like this with the announcement of the closure of the R.C.A. factory in Brynmawr and the loss of 200 jobs. This is extremely serious and concerns us all. We were all surprised and bitterly disappointed to hear of the decision and I understand it stems from the company's withdrawal from general purpose computer manufacture. I do not wish to say more at this stage, but my right hon. and learned Friend is making arrangements to discuss this matter with senior representatives of the company as a matter of urgency. In advance of that, I hope that

    1095
    the hon. Gentleman will not press me further.
    The Department of Employment will naturally do everything possible to find alternative work for those affected. The premises are large and modern, they are privately owned and the Department of Trade and Industry will give what assistance may be required to bring them to the notice of other firms which might be interested. We will pursue this with vigour.
    The loss of 650 jobs at the Teddington factory at Cefn Coed was an additional serious blow adding to an already difficult situation in the Merthyr area. I need not go into the circumstances giving rise to the closure now, but the Department of Trade and Industry is doing all it can to find a new tenant for this large factory. Since this part of Breconshire is within the special development area the maximum range of inducements will be available to incoming industrialists. I am aware of the efforts being made by some of the former sub-contractors of Teddington to obtain defence contracts and my right hon. learned Friend and wish them well.
    The immediate situation in Ystradgynlais is more hopeful. The announcement in October that Smiths Industries is taking over the Caerbont factory means that this large firm will provide 300 more jobs in that area over the next three years. Apart from that, it means that more machining work will be brought there from Essex.
    A word now about the rural areas and the growth centres to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In Brecon work is proceeding on the second advance factory, and I expect this to be completed by the middle of next year. This factory was authorised soon after the letting in March this year of the first advance factory to Ontzi Ola Limited, a Spanish firm which will provide about 50 jobs in the town.
    At Llandrindod Wells progress is being made and about 100 additional jobs will arise from the recently announced ex-
    1096
    pansion of Setten and Durward. This represents a most useful development in the office furniture manufacturing industry.
    Rhayader has had a setback this year with the closure of Lusty and the consequent loss of 45 jobs. The second advance factory at Rhayader in spite of difficulties will, we hope, be proceeded with soon. As to Builth Wells the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I saw a deputation from three local councils about the projected flood alleviation scheme not many days ago. I can add nothing further except to say we are fully seized of the problem.
    As to the infrastructure in these two counties there are at present 27 schemes costing between £40,000 and £245,000 in the trunk road programme. In addition two very important schemes are in the preparation pool, Brecon bypass estimated to cost £3 million and the Gilwern to Glangrwyney link, which will cost about £1 million. A good deal of work is also going on on principal roads. In Brecon the feasibility study, already completed, has I understand been accepted as a basis for development by the borough and county councils, and consultants have already been appointed for Llandrindod Wells to make a study of the town. Difficulties over determining the line of the bypass have held up planning work at Rhayader. As soon as the line has been agreed consultants will press on to complete their task.
    I should like to join with the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association. It has done great things under various Government over a long period of time and we shall continue to give it all the support we can. In dealing with these matters of mid-Wales, we shall continue to see that those areas to which the hon. Gentleman and I have referred will continue to get the attention which the Welsh Office has been giving and will continue to give.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Exports to United States (Carriage by Air)
  Exports to United States (Carriage by Air)
  Automation and Technological Advances
  Automation and Technological Advances
  Coal (Imports from South Africa)
  Coal (Imports from South Africa)
  Gas Boards (Submission of Accounts)
  Gas Boards (Submission of Accounts)
  Machinery (United States Tax Credits)
  Machinery (United States Tax Credits)
  Development and Special Development Areas
  Development and Special Development Areas
  Oil Pipelines
  Oil Pipelines
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Holdings)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Holdings)
  Aerospace Industry
  Aerospace Industry
  Finance Houses (Loan Terms)
  Finance Houses (Loan Terms)
  Industrial Projects (Public Sector)
  Industrial Projects (Public Sector)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Employment (Wales)
  Employment (Wales)
  Gatwick Airport (Night Flights)
  Gatwick Airport (Night Flights)
  Airships
  Airships
  Estate Agents (Fees)
  Estate Agents (Fees)
  Rochdale
  Rochdale
  A300B and Lockheed 1011 Aircraft
  A300B and Lockheed 1011 Aircraft
  Aircraft (Noise)
  Aircraft (Noise)
  Industrial Expansion (Aid)
  Industrial Expansion (Aid)
  Sumburgh Airport, Shetland
  Sumburgh Airport, Shetland
  Trust Houses-Fortes Hotels (Merger)
  Trust Houses-Fortes Hotels (Merger)
  Three Ways Nurseries Limited
  Three Ways Nurseries Limited
  China
  China
  Steel Industry (Plans)
  Steel Industry (Plans)
  Computers
  Computers
  Fabricated Aluminium (Dumping)
  Fabricated Aluminium (Dumping)
  Airports
  Airports
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Gas and Electricity (Pensioners' Rebates)
  Gas and Electricity (Pensioners' Rebates)
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Airliner (S.T.O.L.)
  Airliner (S.T.O.L.)
  Competition
  Competition
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Regional Policies
  Regional Policies
  Shipbuilding Industry Board (Functions)
  Shipbuilding Industry Board (Functions)
  Upper Clyde
  Upper Clyde
  European Scientific and Technical Co-operation
  European Scientific and Technical Co-operation
  Factories (Wales)
  Factories (Wales)
  Dollar Land Holdings Limited
  Dollar Land Holdings Limited
  Textiles (Quotas)
  Textiles (Quotas)
  Dollar Land Holdings Company Limited
  Dollar Land Holdings Company Limited
  Scotland (Official Visit)
  Scotland (Official Visit)
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Aircraft (Smoke Suppressors)
  Aircraft (Smoke Suppressors)
  Women Employees
  Women Employees
  V/STOL Projects
  V/STOL Projects
  Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1957
  Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1957
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Viscount Aircraft (Blind Flying Instrumentation)
  Viscount Aircraft (Blind Flying Instrumentation)
  Industrial Growth (European Economic Community)
  Industrial Growth (European Economic Community)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Development and Intermediate Areas
  Development and Intermediate Areas
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Greece
  Greece
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Library (Duplication of Documents)
  Library (Duplication of Documents)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Mombasa—Lagos Motor Road
  Mombasa—Lagos Motor Road
ENVIRONMENT
  Coastguard Stations (Vacant Houses)
  Coastguard Stations (Vacant Houses)
  House Sales (Contract Arrangements)
  House Sales (Contract Arrangements)
  No. 8, Carlton Crescent, Southampton
  No. 8, Carlton Crescent, Southampton
  Itchen Bridge, Southampton
  Itchen Bridge, Southampton
  Motorway (Midlands—Southampton)
  Motorway (Midlands—Southampton)
  Drunken Driving
  Drunken Driving
  Wrexham—New Brighton/Birkenhead Railway (Grant Aid)
  Wrexham—New Brighton/Birkenhead Railway (Grant Aid)
  Non-Departmental Research
  Non-Departmental Research
  Rate Rebate
  Rate Rebate
  Urban Road Junctions (Mandatory Waiting Bans)
  Urban Road Junctions (Mandatory Waiting Bans)
  Train Collision (Bedfordshire)
  Train Collision (Bedfordshire)
  British Transport Docks Board
  British Transport Docks Board
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  MR. ALFRED MATHEWS, ALIAS ELLIOTT
  MR. ALFRED MATHEWS, ALIAS ELLIOTT
  COUNTY COURTS (PROCEDURE)
  COUNTY COURTS (PROCEDURE)
DEFENCE
  Electronic Noise Machines
  Electronic Noise Machines
  European Military Co-operation
  European Military Co-operation
  Hawk Commander and Jetstream
  Hawk Commander and Jetstream
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  London Schools (Minister's Visits)
  London Schools (Minister's Visits)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
EMPLOYMENT
  Non-Departmental Research Projects
  Non-Departmental Research Projects
  Industrial Stoppages (Scotland)
  Industrial Stoppages (Scotland)
  Unemployed Construction Workers
  Unemployed Construction Workers
  Weekly Wage
  Weekly Wage
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Easington
  Easington
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Research (Live Animals)
  Research (Live Animals)
  M1 (Closure)
  M1 (Closure)
  Driving Offences (Drink)
  Driving Offences (Drink)
  Airships
  Airships
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Urban Aid Programme (Leeds)
  Urban Aid Programme (Leeds)
  West Yorkshire Constabulary
  West Yorkshire Constabulary
  Local Authorities (Draft Representation Schemes)
  Local Authorities (Draft Representation Schemes)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Young Volunteer Force Foundation (Exhibition)
  Young Volunteer Force Foundation (Exhibition)
SCOTLAND
  Colleges of Education (Employees)
  Colleges of Education (Employees)
  Private Sector Housing
  Private Sector Housing
  Crofting System
  Crofting System
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Census
  Census
  Bolingbroke Hospital, Battersea
  Bolingbroke Hospital, Battersea
  Constant Attendance Allowance
  Constant Attendance Allowance
  Fruit Drinks (Metal Pourers)
  Fruit Drinks (Metal Pourers)
  Discharged Hospital Patients
  Discharged Hospital Patients
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Private Insurance Schemes
  Private Insurance Schemes
  Hospital Expenditure (Hull)
  Hospital Expenditure (Hull)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Newbury Community Hospital
  Newbury Community Hospital
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Retirement Pensions (Persons Over 80)
  Retirement Pensions (Persons Over 80)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax
  Non-departmental Research
  Non-departmental Research
  Alcohol (Excise Duty)
  Alcohol (Excise Duty)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Personal Taxation (Simplification)
  Personal Taxation (Simplification)
  Health and Sickness Benefits (Taxation)
  Health and Sickness Benefits (Taxation)
WALES
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Rents
  Rents
  Comprehensive Education (Cardiganshire)
  Comprehensive Education (Cardiganshire)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMIT TEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: ADMISSION OF HUSSEIN SHARIF
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Hussein Sharif, an Asian of British citizenship, who on November 22 was found guilty at Kampala, Uganda, of selling food above the maximum price, and ordered to be deported to the United Kingdom, has been admitted to this country.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): Yes, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not an extraordinary situation that a British citizen in Uganda who commits a crime can be admitted to this country, while the hundreds of British citizens who are lawful, and are in a state of destitution, are unable to get here? Is this not an encouragement to commit crimes?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, most holders of United Kingdom passports who are given notice to leave their countries of residence in East Africa are not deported. They are given priority in the waiting list for special vouchers, and make their own arrangements for travel when they receive a voucher.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, was not this individual deported almost immediately?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as I have explained, very few people are deported following conviction in the courts. This is the first case from Uganda
586
this year, and there were only two last year.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not the Minister in consultation with the Government of Uganda about this precedent?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we remain in close touch with the Governments of Kenya and Uganda over the situation of United Kingdom passport holders as a whole, as I think the noble Lord knows.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., on India and Pakistan. This will be followed by a Statement to be made by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the Boyle Report.
FIELD MONUMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a:an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [H.L.]
2.39 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committe on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Liberty to charge for admission]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("may") insert ("subject to section (Parliamentary control of admission charges) below").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 1. This is a

587
paving Amendment only, and I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to take with it Amendment No. 4, which deals with the Parliamentary control of admission charges; Amendment No. 5, which deals with the free days, and Amendment No. 6, which deals with the exempted persons and reduced charges.
I am glad to see that these Amendments have the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House. I should like to deal briefly with the reasons why they have been tabled. The present legal position is that out of the 18 institutions listed in the Appendix to the Government's White Paper no legislation is required for imposing admission charges in 14 of them. However, the Government have been advised, I understand, that legislation is required for four institutions, including the British Museum: and these are the four named in the Bill. But this is enabling legislation; there is no requirement on the trustees of these institutions to make charges. As the noble Viscount the Paymaster General said in Second Reading, the Bill does not specify the charges, because that is a matter of arrangement between the Government and the museums. The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum, also on Second Reading, and speaking about the British Museum, said:
"If Parliament amends the Act in a way which clearly indicates that they want the trustees to charge, the trustees must take into account Parliament's wishes. They must then decide the question in accordance with their views about the balance of advantage to the Museum's visitors; scholars, students and the general public. I cannot anticipate their decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/11/71, col. 862.]
Those were the words of the Chairman of the Trustees. But even if the charges are made against the Trustees' wishes—and I remember well the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who is, of course, a Trustee of the National Gallery, regretting the charges—there is nothing to stop the Government, either now or in the future, from bringing pressure to bear on the Trustees to increase the charges or to vary them.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said last October, since the Trustees
588
"get all the money from the Government they always agree with the Government over the general picture, and this is exactly what is happening now." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 18/10/71; col. 423.]
Parliament is being asked, therefore, to pass legislation the effects of which cannot be foreseen and over which Parliament has no control. These Amendments seek to ensure a measure of control. There is nothing in them which prevents charges from being made, or which prevents the Minister from making what arrangements he can with the trustees of these institutions. All we are seeking to do is to require the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, to lay a statement, or statements, on the Table of each House which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, setting out the agreed charges and any concessions before the Act becomes effective. This would, I suggest, give Parliament a chance to look at the final scheme. The Government would also have to lay a further statement before Parliament if at any time it is proposed to vary the admission charges. I also suggest to the Committee that such an arrangement would afford some protection to trustees against any undue pressure, both now and in the years to come.
Lest it be thought that this proposal might infringe on the independence and responsibility of the trustees, may I remind the Committee that a very similar provision is included in the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. That Act gives the Trustees of the National Gallery in particular power to lend pictures or other works of art for exhibition outside the United Kingdom. During its passage through Parliament, there was considerable concern that once this power to lend was allowed the Trustees might be persuaded, against their better judgment, by the then Government, or by a future Government, to lend certain of our national treasures abroad, perhaps for diplomatic reasons, without sufficient safeguards about travelling and climatic conditions, security and so on, a situation of which we have of course seen some examples in Continental countries in recent years.
The Conservative Government of the day, after consideration, decided, with the Trustees' agreement, that there should

589
be a measure of Parliamentary control written into the Act, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who was Paymaster General at the time, moved an Amendment stipulating that no picture painted before the year 1700 was to be lent abroad unless the proposal had been laid before Parliament in a Statutory Instrument. This Amendment became subsection (2) of Section 4 of the present Act, and I am told that it has been a very satisfactory arrangement. I had something to do with it at the time, and I should like to mention that this provision was proposed at the express wish of the Trustees of the National Gallery, to ensure them the protection of a Parliamentary review against any possible pressure from a Minister, or from the Treasury. These Amendments before us to-day are also basically about Parliamentary control of the Executive—one of the most important of our democratic safeguards. I submit that this is a principle which should be supported, whether one agrees with admission charges or not. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: There are two opinions about the principle of charging for entry to galleries and museums. In fact, one may well say that there are three, because for a large part of the time I certainly find myself in a third category: that of the "Don't knows". But I have found very few people, whatever view they take about the main principle, who are not interested in and concerned about the way in which charges are going to be administered and about the whole question of season tickets, exceptions and all that one would, in most cases, regard as the minutia of administrative action, but which in this case, I suggest, are very far from minutiae. The particular axe that I have to grind is that I am in favour of the admission of school children, not just in school parties, up to the age of 16. We have heard considerable testimony at one time or another, including that from the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. who spoke from personal experience, about the value which free entry into museums and galleries can have for children who are growing up, particularly for underprivileged children.
The other day I was in one of the great Northern cities, and, as is usually my way when I have time between a lunchtime meeting at a university and
590
catching my train, I went into the local art gallery. I was interested to see that to a large extent it was acting as what I suppose I can refer to only as "a snogging shop" for the adolescents of the city. They were perfectly well behaved; they were not getting in anyone's way; they obviously did not have anywhere much more agreeable to meet in that particular city on a wet afternoon. I believe very strongly that it is this particular ability to make use of museums and galleries for possibly what one might regard from a straight, artistic and aesthetic point of view as the wrong reason, which gets young people and children used to seeing works of art and to appreciating them. From time to time, perhaps, when their "date" is late, they will go round and will learn what it is all about. Of course, it does not happen only in that way. There are many children who like to go into museums and galleries just for the sake of going into museums and galleries, and they are not necessarily those in relation to whom their parents will always regard it a benefit to buy a season ticket for them, no matter how low the cost might be. I am absolutely convinced that from an educational point of view it would be a crime to put any barrier against children entering museums and galleries as freely as possible.
That is the particular axe that I have to grind. Other noble Lords have theirs; and, indeed, so far as I have been able to discover, anyone with an interest in the Arts has some point of this kind to urge. It is for this reason that I think we should be allowed to see and comment on the details of any scheme that is put forward before it finally goes into law. This Amendment is not in any way a wrecking Amendment: it is an Amendment to allow democracy to have its way; to allow Members of Parliament in both Houses to have a look at a detailed scheme about which there is considerable disquiet and even more interest. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount the Minister who is in charge of the Bill will see his way to accepting the Amendment, which gives away nothing of the principle which he is standing for, rightly or wrongly, but allows us all, and possibly himself, to go forward with his scheme with a greater sympathy and knowing that he has a far greater measure of public opinion behind him.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: I want to make an appeal to my noble friend Lord Eccles to accept at any rate Amendment No. 5, which is one of those we are dealing with in this group. Some fifty years ago, when I was a poor student in London, I certainly could not afford to hear music. I discovered that the Albert Hall gave concerts on Sunday afternoons and that if you queued on Sunday afternoons then by the terms of the charter of the Albert Hall there were a number of free standing places from which you could hear the concerts there. It is almost not too much to say that my own love of music began through the free standing places that I had in the Albert Hall as a poor student some Sunday afternoons fifty years ago. A little later, when I was able to go abroad for the first time, I found that in Paris the Louvre was either free or at half price on Sunday; that in Venice the Academia, one of the most precious art galleries in the whole world, is free on Sunday mornings; and that the Palazzo Ducale, in Venice, is half price on Sundays—and even to-day, if one goes either to Paris or to Venice, one sees enormous queues waiting on the free days or on the half-price days for the privilege of enjoying works that they could not enjoy if it were not for the reduced prices. So I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, whatever he does about the other Amendments—and they are quite innocent ones, which simply ask for a little more Parliamentary control over the charges he is going to impose—will accept Amendment No. 5, which says that in any case, whatever charges the Government decide to impose, there will be days on which those charges will either be non-existent or at least half price.
2.55 p.m.
LORD SHIN WELL: I find myself wholeheartedly on the side of the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Maybray-King in support of this Amendment. Of course, we are not debating the principle involved; that is to say, whether charges should be imposed. That, I understand, was decided in the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. The issue is whether there should be a measure of Parliamentary control. Obviously, Parliament is concerned in the matter of administration as to whether there should
592
be exceptions, and, if there are to be exceptions, or if there are to be special impositions affecting children or the like, whether Parliament should have a say in the matter. It seems to me that as Parliament exercises a certain measure of financial control in matters concerning museums and art galleries, and particularly the National Gallery and other establishments of a similar character, there is every reason why there should be some further measure of Parliamentary control.
I want to follow what my noble friend Lord Maybray-King has said. I gained practically all the beginning of my education in the Kelvin Art Gallery in Glasgow. Like many others who left school at the age of 11½or 12 having received no education, or practically no education, I gravitated towards the Kelvin Art Gallery and gained a great deal of information on the subject of evolution, concerned with palaeontology, osteology and matters of that sort, and became almost an authority on that subject. I have forgotten most of it by now, having engaged in political life. One does not quarrel with these sort of matters, unless one is an expert; but over and above that, one was able to gain some knowledge of art. One did not understand the principles underlying art then. I do not pretend that I understand the principles underlying art even now, but I can admire a fine painting. I can recall some admirable paintings at the time, one in particular of Robert Cunninghame Graham. I think it was by Whistler. Naturally, I was interested in Robert Cunninghame Graham, who was a descendant of Scottish kings, or at any rate claimed, as the laird of Gartmore, that he was a descendant of Scottish kings, because he had written several books and I had read those books. They were books not necessarily for children or even for adolescents, but there was a certain connotation which interested young people; and I read those books and saw that painting. In later years I spoke from the same platform as Robert Cuninghame Graham. I recall incident, of various kinds, during unemployment demonstrations in Glasgow, and so on. He was interested in social matters of that Sort.

593
So one gains some kind of education: not the kind of academic education that noble Lords like Lord Robbins and others can claim, to their advantage and to the advantage of your Lordships' House and those in universities and like academic institutions. It is a great advantage to have had an academic education; but it is equally an advantage, and one derives considerable benefit from it, to have had an education which follows a lack of education of the normal character.
The noble Viscount the Paymaster General has gained a great victory, if such it can be called, in pushing through this measure to impose a charge for entrance to museums, art galleries and the like, and I would ask him to agree to a concession. After all, we are asking not for the establishment but for the maintenance of a principle, which has been accepted in general in connection with many other matters, that Parliament should have a measure of control; that from time to time, when schemes are formulated and presented by the Paymaster General himself or through the medium of trustees or by a combination of both, Parliament should have the right to say, "We do not like this scheme. There ought to be some amendment; some concession should be made."
3.0 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I wish to support what has been said in favour of the Amendments. I feel that I should apologise to noble Lords because I have visited only one of the establishments, the Royal Gallery, although I was a Member of another place for well over 20 years. I have never been even to the British Museum, and perhaps I should have taken advantage of the opportunities which were afforded to me, as they were to other people who spent time in the British Museum gaining information which enabled them to write books or assisted them in preparing their memoirs.
I was struck by the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who referred to the age of 16 for school children. In the area that I come from, in the North-East, and in the Highlands of Scotland there are families who may be able to visit the capital with their children on only one occasion. It may be that the parents have never been to London before, and when they come
594
as a family on this one occasion they are faced with tremendous expense in the form of fares and payment for accommodation. They would wish their children to be able to visit the museums and other places which children who live in the London area are privileged to do. No one has taken a greater interest in this matter than my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge. I remember when I was at the Post Office applying to her in connection with the exhibition in certain post offices of designs prepared by people who had the ability to express themselves on canvas. I do not think it is too much to ask that the Minister, even if he is not prepared to accept all the Amendments, should consider the question of children of 16 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I recall when the noble Viscount occupied another position in Government. I do not consider that he is a hard master or a person who would seek to get something for nothing. I recall that when we sent letters to him containing requests to which he was unable to agree he would add a note in his own handwriting in the reply wishing us "better luck next time". I hope that on this occasion our luck will be such that the Minister will accede to the request which has been made to him.
LORD ROBBINS: Should I be out of order if I asked for an explanation? The speeches made so far have been in support of a cause which I have very near to my heart, as noble Lords who were present during the Second Reading debate on this Bill will recollect. My question is this. Would the acceptance of Amendment No. 5 oblige the Minister to commit the trustees of galleries and museums to allow a free day? In which case I should certainly find myself in the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment. At the moment I do not read it in that sense, and I should like some elucidation before making any further remarks.
LORD STRABOLGI: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the Amendment. It can allow a free day but it does not specify a free day. It says:
"…shall specify any day or days or any part of such day or days on which the trustees or other governing body of any such institution may determine that charges for admission be not made or be reduced."
It gives the right not to have a free day, although I hope that in negotiation there

595
will be some at those institutions who want a free day. I should explain that not all the institutions do, although I know that the National Gallery does.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: If I may intervene, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has raised an important point. Amendment No. 5 is dependent upon the acceptance of Amendment No. 4; that is to say, unless the general power to determine the charges is handed over by the Government to individual museums we shall not he able to get a free day at one museum and not at another. Therefore we cannot take this Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, wishes to speak without knowing whether we arc to get the previous Amendment. When we have had time to look at that I think it will become clearer whether or not the free day Amendment is one which will commend itself to the Committee.
3.10 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I regard this as a sad and humiliating occasion. My noble friends Lord Slater, Lord Shinwell and Lord Maybray-King spoke with passion and concern about having a free day or at least some free time. How low have we sunk as a nation that at this time in our history (when we accept in terms of power politics the Government's decision to impose certain museum charges) that having lost that battle we should now be fighting a rearguard action by saying, again in terms of power politics, "Can we have some free time?" What my noble friend Lord Maybray-King said when he was referring to his visits to Rome, the Louvre and elsewhere was that on the free days there were great crowds present. Is that not part of our humiliation? Does not this totally undermine the Government's case that if anybody wants to go to the museums and galleries, he can afford to do so? What does happen? We know that in Paris, in Rome and in many other places the attendance on free days is higher than the attendance on days when people have to pay.
Once upon a time, I should have thought that in the Tory Party there was something called noblesse oblige. I ask noble Lords opposite: "Do you feel fine about this?" Practically everyone of us
596
in this Chamber realises that if we want to go to the museums and galleries then once this troglodyte Government have had their way and charges are imposed, we do not have to go in with the rest of the natives. We can go in on the paying days. The questions that arise are these. Who are going to go in on the days when people pay? Who are going to go in on the days which are free? On the paying days anyone who wants to go, who is interested and who can afford to, can do so. That is on the paying days. I repeat, who goes in on the free days? Obviously, people who want to go in, people young and old and middle-aged. Nobody will go in on a free day if he can afford to go in on a paying day. I hope that that is clear. That is why I say that I consider this to be a depressing and humiliating occasion.
We have great national galleries and museums. Most of them have been given to the nation by enlightened patrons. Most of the contents have also been given to the nation by such patrons. Some people are squabbling about Turner's will. I will take Henry Moore's interpretation before most people's; and he is speaking for himself and gives me authority to quote his views. He said, "Whatever the lawyers may quibble about, there is no doubt that Turner wanted his gifts to the nation to be free for anyone to see." That is true also of Henry Moore. We are antagonising our contemporary patrons whether they are our Hugh Leggatts (who have done so well in this fight for entrance to exhibitions) or our Henry Turners or our Francis Bacons. I could name the lot. The Government are antagonising practically all in the civilised world of the Arts.
If you are a great artist and if you can afford to give something to the nation, or if you are a great patron, what incentive have you to do so? Part of the incentive was that you, as one of those more fortunate either by wealth or by your gifts as an artist, could give something. You are not seeking to give to the rich who do not need it; above all, you are seeking to give a little more justice in the world so that no one should be kept out because it was embarrassing or because it was difficult to pay the fee. That is why I say that this is a sad and humiliating day, and I am sorry the present Government should have

597
brought us to the pitch that even from the Cross Benches we are now reduced to pleading with the great Tory, businessman's Government with "everybody standing on his own feet", including Rolls-Royce and the rest. We are reduced to pleading that since in terms of power politics they have agreed that there should be charges, we should now have a free day. More people will want to go on free days. And who are they? They are the people who care. And who are those who care? Some of them will be children. The last thing that I want is a means test for children. I do not want to make war on children. I want children even from the grant-aided schools, who have just been given a present of£2 million by Mrs. Thatcher, and children from Eton or other great public schools whose parents can afford to pay the£600 to£900 school fees, to go in free. The last thing I want is to provide a means test for children.
If the Paymaster General is going to say that he believes in the principle of museum charges and wants to make exemptions only for those people who genuinely cannot afford the charges, then he must look at his priorities, because some children come from homes that can afford to pay. I am in favour of all children going in free. I do not think that the answer is a crocodile of children in school groups. I am concerned that the children can go in individually. I do not care whether they come from hack street slums or from palaces. They ought to feel that our museums and galleries are part of their school.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell spoke about his upbringing in Glasgow. I grew up in Carnegie town, near Dunfermline, and on Saturday nights there were penny concerts. There was no great orchestra, no great musician, no great singer, who did not come to Dunfermline in those days. My father adored music and I can see now the light in his eyes when we went to the penny concert in Dunfermline. It was practically free.
Why I am so sad and depressed is that those days of my father's youth, Lord Shinwell's youth and Lord Slater's youth ought to be behind us. We are now saying in this Chamber: "Please do not take away from the children of to-day, from the people of any age of to-day, the amenities that we enjoyed in
598
our youth." I am not talking about myself. I am privileged. I go to concerts and so on, but I do not understand how the Tory Party, traditionally representing great wealth and landed estates and privilege could humiliate itself and us by saying that it is necessary for the national economy that we should have these kinds of charges. After all, the poor old Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to deflate the economy. I am not saying that by abandoning these charges in toto we shall cure unemployment or anything like that; but against the background of the Government (who are turning in circles all the time) trying to find out ways of spending more money and not less, it makes these charges even more ridiculous.
In addition to the charges there is the fact that there is something really dreadful in people, whether they are old or young, wanting to go to galleries, finding it an embarrassment to pay and then crowding in on the free days. Of course, the whole background of this is to get fewer people to go to the galleries: if you want to get fewer people to go, cut out the poorest. I fully sympathise wish the Paymaster General in his desire to have better museums and galleries; but though buildings are important, and the contents still more important, people are the most important of all. So I hope that when the noble Viscount comes to reply he will not play over again the old record about having to sacrifice people and contents in order to get more space and more buildings. I think he has his priorities all wrong—and his sums wrong, too; because he talked about a marginal figure of£1 million or less.
I come to what I think is another very important aspect of this issue—that is, the relationship between the Government, between the political Minister of the day, and the trustees. Again I find it odd that leading trustees are not coming here to-day and are skulking in corners, because their personal convictions go in one direction and they fear that they will be politically blackmailed if they come out too openly against the Government and express their opposition to charges. I do not think that anyone can deny that, from the British Museum to the Victoria and Albert, from the National Gallery to the Tate, the overwhelming opinion of the scholars and

599
trustees—of all the people whom successive Governments have appointed because they were the best and the most concerned and the most informed people—is of dislike for this business of having to put up turnstiles and desks and make charges. They have sufficient national pride not to be influenced by what is happening in America or anywhere else. Let us do our own thing in our own way. Though there are some things we cannot do to-day, we have this great pleasure and graciousness that people of every kind and every class are able to go into our galleries and museums whenever they like.
But the Government of the day—and they must accept this—are interfering in a way that I would never have tolerated during the six years that I had the responsibility for the relationship between the trustees and the Government. I understood that it was the duty of the Government to decide how much they were prepared to spend and to decide the priorities. The duty of the Minister for the Arts was to get together with the museum and gallery trustees, the leaders of orchestras and theatres, and of the other Arts, and to find out the maximum support that the Government could give financially and then leave it to them to see what the Arts of Great Britain at any given moment of time could do. They ought not to reflect the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, however distinguished he may be, or of myself yesterday, however undistinguished I may have been, or of any other Minister of the day. This is all right for a totalitarian, an authoritarian country. But in Great Britain we have developed a very sophisticated and sensitive relationship between the trustees for the arts and the Government. Although the political Minister of the day appointed the trustees, the Minister could not dictate to the trustees (we must get this constitutional point straight) and the trustees could not dictate to the Minister.
In this business of appointments, of course, a Minister knows a limited number of people, and he or she has to come together with those interested in the Arts to appoint the best people. I do not want to be personal. but may I say to the Paymaster General that when the Trustees of the British Museum suggested that he
600
should be their Chairman, I at once agreed. I had full delegated power from the Prime Minister and I did not consult anyone at all. I agreed it "on the nod" straight away. Why?—because the noble Viscount had the confidence of his fellow Trustees; because he was a devoted Museum man and because I thought that he was the right person for the job. I tell your Lordships now that had I thought he was going to propose the vulgarity of these charges, I should have had second thoughts and should have got the Trustees together to find someone else. I am sorry if I have talked with, maybe, some violence, but each of us, in his own day and generation, has had responsibilities. I have certain responsibilities as a privileged member of my family and of my Party. I do not have to worry about a charge of a penny or a shilling to go into a museum, though I think that my heart will turn sick if I have to go through a turnstile, not for what is costs me but because of the insensitivity and vulgarity behind it. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government of the day will have second thoughts.
3.27 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: May I ask whether we are discussing Amendment No. 4 as well as No. 5?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord who moved this Motion said that if the Committee were in agreement, he would like to discuss Nos. 4 and 5 as well as No. 1 and No. 6.
LORD ROBBINS: Then I shall be in order to make a few further observations on that Amendment. May I begin by saying that I feel in a position of very great difficulty, because I am in sympathy with all that has been said in favour of free days and with much which has been said about the general policy of charges. I hope that what I am going to say now will not lead my friends in different parts of the House to feel that I am letting the side down, but it seems to me that if we focus on the ipsissima verba of these Amendments we find that the principle which is under discussion is the principle of Parliamentary control of the imposition of charges and the permission of free days. On that point, I confess that I am in a position of considerable intellectual difficulty.

601
I see considerable objections to the Amendments from that point of view, not from the point of view of the liberties which they seek indirectly to sustain. But in so far as they bear on the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, expatiated upon—namely, the relationship between trustees and the Minister responsible for the Arts, I see grounds for hesitation before supporting the further extension of Parliamentary control. The particular powers of trustees as they have grown up in our society with our administrative procedure are delicate and intangible. In the past they certainly have worked pretty well. Ministers have not sought to impose on trustees policies with which the trustees were in disagreement, and trustees have been mindful of the desirability of acquainting Ministers with what changes they had in mind, what aspirations they entertained, and the general policies with which they would be in sympathy.
Now we are confronted with a position in which, unhappily, that relationship has been—let me be candid—impaired. It is surely no secret that a substantial number—I have not taken a public opinion survey—of the trustees of the leading museums and galleries, for the reasons which I endeavoured to explain shortly when we had our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, bitterly regret the decision of the Government to impose charges. As I said on that occasion, if we have acquiesced in this policy, it has not been because we were under any illusion that the majority of us were secretly in favour, but rather because we were conscious that we were the victims—I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for whom I have a great affection will not feel that I am speaking in an unfriendly way—of force majeure. Some people may ask: "Why did you not resign?" To that I would reply that I think the thought must have flitted through the minds of many members of those bodies, and it certainly flitted through my mind but there was also vividly in our minds the fact that, in our judgment at any rate, some matters even more important than the matter of charges were at stake: and it is a well-known and irrefutable proposition that you can commit hara-kiri only once.
The proposal is that safeguards be erected by way of obliging trustees and Ministers to lay on the Table of Parlia-
602
ment details of charges which it is proposed to introduce. I see and appreciate the grounds on which this Amendment is put forward, and I honour those who have framed it, but I ask myself: does this really strengthen the position? If a Minister has made up his mind to impose some alteration in the charges now proposed, and he, in virtue of such an Amendment, is compelled to lay his proposals on the Table of the House, is it not more likely, rather than less, that the chances of getting a modification of these proposals are diminished? Will he not feel committed, in a sense in which he might not be committed in the friendly discussions between trustees and his office, to put the Whips on and make quite sure that his dictum has the full authority of Parliament? In my judgment—perhaps I am over-optimistic —in general, trustees have more chance of getting their way with Ministers if the disputes do not take place in public. If, by some unlucky accident, as has lamentably taken place recently, principles are introduced in regard to which they have not been consulted, and with which they are in disagreement, even though there still remains the possibility of having the kind of debate that we are having now, my conviction is that this kind of debate does not induce the Minister, whoever he may be, to alter his determination. The mere fact that he has to give forty days notice, or something of that sort, to the Houses of Parliament will not make him change his mind.
Therefore, to conclude, while I endorse wholeheartedly the eloquent pleas which have come from various parts of the Committee for the Minister to consider yet again the principle which he is imposing on the museums, and to consider again the modest plea that some of us have made for a free day, if it is a question of dividing the House on this extension of Parliamentary control I shall feel compelled to abstain.
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I wish to intervene for only a moment or two, because I have not one-thousandth part of the knowledge of these matters possessed by my noble friend Lord Robbins, who has just spoken, or the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, who not only has an immense knowledge on this subject but speaks with

603
such deep eloquence and great charm that we are always interested in what she says and attach the greatest weight thereto. I am only going to raise a very humdrum point, following a point that my noble friend made in his speech. I think that these Amendments, taken together, are really asking my noble friend the Minister to accept something which is beyond what is reasonable, because, as I understand it—I may be wrong—they would mean that the trustees would, by their decisions, influence what sum in the aggregate would be raised by the charges. As I understand it, considerable importance is attached to the minimum which it is hoped will be raised by this contribution. If that is so, then the situation is one which it would be difficult for my noble friend to persuade his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, for that matter, Parliament, to accept. I know that, having once mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer, noble Lords will pay no more attention to what I say, because the attributes which one earns in a few years' service at the Treasury —cheeseparing, miserly, bloodsucking and mean—remain with one.
LORD ROBBINS: The noble Lord may not be aware that he will go down in history as having achieved an absolutely discontinuous increase in the grants to the National Gallery.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am too modest. I once had an ode written to me and a dinner given to me, and was compared at that time with Mæcenas, though the figures that we were talking about then may seem a little derisory to-day. When I went to the Treasury I had a heart; two and a half years later I was not sure whether I had that organ; and when somebody asked me the other day whether I would ever have my heart transplanted, I said: "I don't think I have ever had that organ to be transplanted since I left the Treasury."
The single point I want to make is: would it be reasonable, in the light of the aims of this Bill, to ask my noble friend to accept the consequences if these Amendments were taken together? If I am wrong, I shall be glad to have it explained to me. Listening to my noble friend when he opened this debate, I
604
formed the impression that in fact my noble friend had reached an understanding with his colleagues which was likely to prove extremely favourable to the future of the museums. As I understand it, with the acceptance of the principle of charges went very considerable assurances that the sums which would be allocated to the future support of museums would be considerably larger than they are to-day; and I believe that should be our main object to-day. I have great sympathy with the position of our museums. I believe it is a fact, as has been brought out by so many noble Lords, that every year that goes by more and more people are visiting the museums with greater pleasure and saisfaction, and that is one of the excellent results following the expansion of education which has taken place in recent years. But if that is so, then I entirely agree with what my noble friend said at the beginning, that if that is the fortunate position then we must make sure that these museums are in all respects worth visiting. I regard that as the main object of the exercise, and although I am not enchanted with the principle of charges it fits in with the general principles of the Government. I would regard it as a modest price to pay for assurances of greater funds in the future for the expansion and development of our museums.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I speak as an individual who is also a Trustee of the Natural History Museum, and I believe that all these Amendments are entirely misconceived, bearing in mind the way in which those of us who are trustees work in our relationship with the Minister. I personally like the system which was started in the 1750s for the British Museum. I think the way of running our museums by appointing trustees chosen by the Prime Minister or the Royal Society or others for reasons which I flatter myself are admirable, is the right way to run those museums. But I think it depends very much on the relationship between the body of the trustees and the Minister who has very tight budgetary control over the way in which those institutes are managed and over the principles on which we run them, which inevitably go with budgetary control.
When the Bill dividing the two branches of the British Museum was

605
passed, I think in 1963, setting up the Natural History Museum as a second body, I moved an Amendment—I was not then a Trustee—to oblige two Trustees to report every three years to Parliament. That Amendment was opposed by the then Trustees of the British Museum, but I moved it quite deliberately because I felt that the Trustees ought to have some protection against the Minister and that a three. yearly report in which they could say that they were being damned badly treated, if indeed they thought this, was the right way of bringing pressure to bear on the Minister. The matter could then be debated in Parliament, and probably would be so debated, if they reported to that effect. But, frankly, speaking as a Trustee—and perhaps it is significant that only two of us who have spoken this afternoon are in that position and I think we are both in agreement—I should prefer our relationships to remain direct with the Minister, without the control by Parliament in between those three-yearly periods which these Amendments involve.
I feel that my relationship, as an individual trustee, with the Minister implies that within limits I have to he prepared to work on the lines which he lays down. If I do not like that, I resign. That is my proper course: to resign, write the sort of letter to The Times which usually goes with such a resignation and hope that it may cause such a stink that the Minister may change his mind and that, even though I myself am not there, my fellow trustees who have not resigned may have a better way of working the museums. For that reason, I strongly hope that these Amendments will not be pressed. I think they are misconceived. It would be most unfortunate if the machinery which we have built up over 200 years for running our museums were changed. I therefore hope that if the Amendments are pressed your Lordships will reject them.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: When my noble friend the Paymaster General comes to reply, he will unquestionably make a powerful case on his own behalf, but I am not at all sure that when that time comes the impression that is made most powerfully on all parts of your Lordships' House will not have been made by the two trustees who have just spoken, my noble friend, Lord
606
Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. Here we have trustees, who are the people to whom we should pay more attention than to anybody else during the Amendments. Yet it is possible that the clouds of Second Reading steam, generated earlier in the debate, may not have cleared away sufficiently so it is important to see exactly what the Amendments are all about. Therefore, if your Lordships will forgive me, I will return for a few moments to the place where the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, left off and point out that all that is being asked for is that Parliament should have the ability to say "No": no more than that. It is not an entirely unreasonable request, though it may be undesirable from the point of view of the trustees. This, I think, should be very much borne in mind.
Sometimes when considering the purport of a Bill it is a salutary exercise to consider whether it could have been better drafted in some other way. I recall, and no doubt others will too, that my noble friend Lord Conesford had some effect on the Second Reading of the British Standard Time Bill when he said that it might have been drafted to the effect that—
"Winter shall hereafter be deemed to be the summer".
Nothing quite so diverting as that can be done with this Bill, but the attempt was made on Second Reading, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Platt—and I hope I am not pre-empting anything he may be thinking of saying now when he pointed out that the Bill could have been drafted so as to give power to the Minister to fix and collect entry charges from the museums concerned. That is what in fact the Bill ultimately does, and the question is whether it is right that the Minister should be judge, jury, collector and everything else in his own case. This is what your Lordships are asked to think about.
Many of your Lordships are trustees of private trusts—not public trusts, but, say, marriage settlement or will trusts—and there is nothing in law to prevent your buying undated Government stocks with your trust capital. Probably you would think that this was not a very good idea and that it was not the best you could do with the trust. You might say,

607
"No, I don't want to." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to you and said, "You must.", you would say "No"—at least I guess that you would. If he then said, "That's all very well. I cannot force you; but if you don't do it I will see to it that the Inland Revenue and the Estate Duty office are as un-co-operative as they possibly can be and you will end up worse off than if you had paid the bill like a good boy when I asked you to." That is a rough but pretty reasonable analogy, I submit. If you were in that position I think you would be pleased if you knew that you had a happy opportunity of making a complaint through a Member either of this House or of another place, so that some objection could be made to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from doing any such thing. It would not happen; the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not do it—but that is not the point. That is really all that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and his friend are asking for in this case.
Is that what your Lordships want? Do you want control in a negative form over the imposition of charges or not? It is not a question, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, and others, of whether these charges are right or wrong. I opposed them long ago. I am not taking this stand now; I think it is irrelevant. The charges are going to be imposed. The question is, "Do you or do you not want to have some say in whether they should be controlled by the Government or not?" That is what these Amendments are about. The details can be argued later, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be happy if the principle can be accepted and the remainder left to debate.
LORD CAMOYS: I have spent some 15 years on the Advisory Council of the Victoria and Albert Museum, so I may claim to know a little about it. I talked to the staff this morning and we are all against imposing any charges. We feel that we can raise the money in some other way.
3.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The Committee will see that I am in some difficulty because my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery thinks that these Amendments raise only one simple matter; namely,
608
that Parliament should have a chance to approve the scale of charges. The noble Lords who intervened at the beginning of our debate, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Maybray-King, Lord Shinwell, Lord Slater, and, to some extent, Lord Robbins, were asking for a modification in the system of charges which we have already adumbrated and, in particular, either no charge for un-accompanied children or a free day. These are matters which are well worth discussing. I have already told your Lordships on another occasion that the reason why we have kept the number of exemptions as low as possible is in order to keep the basic charge down. After we have had experience of two or three years of charging of course it would be right to look at the tariff to see whether amendments should be made. The trouble is that these amendments for children or for free days could not be made under the Amendments that have been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, without immense and absolutely unacceptable difficulties. Therefore I must ask your Lordships to allow me to speak to the Amendments as they are on the Marshalled List. The Amendments would introduce a radical change in the well-established relations between the Government and those national museums and galleries which have trustees or a governing body, though not all of them.
I am not against a radical change if it makes sense. But I shall have to explain to the Committee that those now proposed would lead to chaos. I will come in a moment to the two principles to be found in the Amendments; namely, the proposal that the Government should surrender to the trustees of a museum their right to determine the scale of charges. That is firmly stated in the first of the new clauses. Secondly, there is the proposal that scales of charges so determined should be laid before Parliament for approval.
The Committee will first wish to examine the practical effects of the Amendments. This would be to introduce a network of charges so uneven, so chaotic and so troublesome to vary in the smallest particular that this Bill, and the policy behind it, would become worthless. This must happen because each museum which had a governing

609
body would, under these Amendments, be given the power to determine its own scale of charges, exemptions and free days. I am advised that this is exactly what the first Amendment says. These museums do not all think alike. At some the charges might be so low, and the exemptions so numerous, that the costs of administration would swallow up all the receipts. At the other extreme a museum itself—think what they already charge for special exhibitions!—might, in order to keep the crowds away, raise the charges to levels which no one in this Committee would approve. And all the time the Government would be charging their own scale at the Victoria and Albert, the Science Museum and the Royal Scottish Museum.
The public would ask why, since all the museums are dependent on the Government for their money, the Government did not see that the rates and the exemptions were all the same. What would happen, for example, if students were treated differently at different national museums? And if some museums wanted to risk a free day and others did not, as we know would be the case, what then would be the pressures on those who were trying to avoid the dangers of overcrowding? We cannot know in advance how chaotic this patchwork of charges will be, or how much the public will suffer. But what is certain—a point made by my noble friend Lord Amory—is that the Government's plan for financing the museums would be destroyed. We could never be sure whether the sum would be collected in charges which we consider the visitors can afford to pay, without serious hardship, towards the development and expansion of the museum service.
I must say again that the purpose in introducing charges is to improve the museum service: more buildings, better amenities, more staff and more acquisitions. These Amendments, if carried, would put an end to the prospect of raising in an orderly manner any predetermined sum. I should have to advise your Lordships to resist them on these practical grounds alone.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I should like to ask my noble friend a question purely for clarification; it is not in the least argumentative. I have probably misunderstood the Bill;
610
although it is simple, perhaps it is too complicated for me. I do not see what it is in the Bill that empowers the Government to ensure that the museums all charge the same entrance fees now.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The Government can always use their influence to insist that all the charges are the same. The object of these Amendments is to give, for example, those museums who want to have a free day the right to claim one. We cannot do this and still preserve the general financial scheme for the museums which we have in mind.
I should like to turn now to the two principles around which the Amendments are constructed. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, raised the question of the duties and powers of trustees, and their relationship with the Government. My colleagues and I have been giving a great deal of thought to this matter. We think that the present situation is unsatisfactory. It is also very complicated because we have a hotchpotch of structures with which we have to deal. Your Lordships will know that the national museums and galleries operate under widely different legal arrangements. At one end of the scale you have six museums managed by trustees who have statutory powers. In the middle there is a group of five museums set up by Treasury Minute. Their powers have been varied from time to time by the issue of new instruments. At the other end are the departmental museums which are managed by a director advised by, but not subject to, a body of distinguished persons. Lastly, there are two museums run by chartered bodies, of which the National Museum of Wales is an important and outstanding example.
Your Lordships might think that such a variety of legal instruments would have produced an equivalent variety in the museums' relations with the Government; but this is not so. Finance and Treasury control have seen to that. There is almost complete uniformity in the range of decisions which have to be referred to the Department of Education and Science, to the Scottish Office or to the Welsh Office. I will not trouble your Lordships with the one major exception; it is not relevant, and I hope soon to put it right.
When I was at the British Museum I chafed at times under the system, but in

611
the end one always had to accept that the money came from the Government. Within the framework of the grant the Trustees can do a great many things; and they do a great many things of the utmost value. But certainly they cannot do everything which they would like. Their relations with the Government would be impossible if everything they did not want to do had to be imposed upon them by Statute. Equally, one would not expect everything they can do to be set out in their governing instruments. The way this works may be clearer if I give the Committee a few examples. There is nothing in the legal instruments to prevent the Trustees from closing the Museum for a month or for one day a week. There is no legal requirement to charge for the various services which they offer to the public, nor for special exhibitions; and they accept that the rate of charges is fixed with the Government. Nor is there anywhere an instruction which stops them from putting some of their building work out to private contract and not having it all done by the Department of the Environment.
In these and many other matters the deciding factor is the conditions under which the trustees get their money. Now one can argue about most of these examples whether or not the Government should have the last word, but there cannot be any argument that entrance charges which are to be treated as appropriations in aid must be a condition of the grant. The system under which Government-financed institutions work creaks and groans sometimes, but it goes forward and much is accomplished because of the good sense and great experience of the trustees and their staffs. This really is the point at issue. Entrance charges are not taxes, although three noble Lords opposite recently spoke as if they were; and if they believed what they were saying these Amendments could not possibly have been put down. The charges are in fact contributions towards the cost of maintaining the museums. Similar charges are made at publicly maintained buildings, and they arc all treated as appropriations in aid; that is to say they are a source of revenue not suitable to be determined except on the conditions laid down by the Government.
612
Therefore it follows that, while the attitude of the trustees towards charges was of course a very important consideration, it could not be decisive. So far as the governing bodies expressed a corporate view, they deplored the introduction of charges. Their objections were the stronger, of course, because it was not possible to tell them in advance that the Government's decision was part of the plan to finance their own expansion. If we could have done this they might have been more sympathetic, but I think it very likely that many of them would have maintained their objections on principle; and I should have understood that. After all, if we had asked the local education authorities whether they approved of an increase in charges for school meals it is almost certain they would have said, No. If we were now to ask the universities or the colleges of further education whether they approve of the tuition fees it is extremely likely that we should hear a great many objections.
It is a fact of life that Government-financed institutions would like to receive all the money they ask for and without any strings attached. But my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having many claims to consider, must try to make the funds at his disposal go as far as possible, and for this reason he must remain in control of appropriations in aid which yield a small addition to his revenue. After what we have heard I think your Lordships will be interested to know that no body of trustees has told me that they think they ought to determine the scale of charges or the conditions attached to them. This is a proposition —
LORD PLATT: May I intervene, just to ask a question? If that really is the case, how can the words in Clause 1 be justified: that the governing body
"may make such charges for admission to any museum or gallery as they may determine"?
What on earth do those words mean?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: It is of course the museums themselves that will issue the scale of charges, but they do this on the conditions which the Government attach to their grant. All the other financial matters with which the museums deal are in exactly the same situation, as anyone who has been a trustee knows very well. Once the museums were made

613
aware that it was the Government's policy to charge, they have collaborated, in a way for which I am very grateful, in the preparation of the many details. I have here what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, says in making his Annual Report on the National Galleries of Scotland. He says:
"We have already assured you"—
that is the Secretary of State for Scotland—
"that if it is the will of Parliament that admission fees should be imposed on visitors to the National Galleries of Scotland we will do our best to implement the measure, but that as a body of trustees we will share objections and misgivings, which have been widely expressed."
This is the general attitude of museums: that charges are part of the conditions of their grant. Do your Lordships really think that if there were no charges at the Tower of London or Hampton Court the Department of the Environment would be able to spend what it does spend in maintaining the gardens, and all the rest of it? It is all part of the financing of the institution.
The second change in existing practice which the Amendments would bring about is to require that the scales of charges should be approved by Parliament. Here, I am sure, the Committee were very interested in the views of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. It is a very unusual proposal. It is not done in similar cases. Parliament does not have to approve the entrance charges for palaces, historic buildings and ancient monuments. Parliament does not have to approve the fees that are charged for further education. I am not aware that anyone has ever made a proposal of this kind before. Certainly the Labour Government did nothing of the kind. They cheerfully increased the charges at historic buildings without reporting to Parliament. And they were quite right. The scales of charges are many and various and often require to be amended. Your Lordships may think that the amount of Parliamentary time that would be needed to approve them could be more usefully devoted to larger matters. I imagine that this would be the view of the great majority of the overworked Members of another place. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that once we get so official a procedure the room for going to and fro in argument between
614
the Minister and the trustees is much reduced.
The main Amendment before us is defective. It provides that if the Trustees of a museum sought to introduce one single item or condition to which Parliament objected no charges of any kind could be made for 40 days. That would add to the chaos to which I have already referred. But I would not ask your Lordships to resist these Amendments solely on account of their drafting and there are indeed other passages which would need altering. The two principles which they embody are seriously wrong. They go directly against our well-understood practice that the financing of the national museums and galleries is a matter of policy which any Government must keep in their own hands.
May I conclude these remarks by trying once again to make vivid to your Lordships the Government's purpose in introducing charges. If one approaches Trafalgar Square from Whitehall, on the far side, next to the National Gallery on the left is that great empty site which before the war was occupied by Hamptons. It was badly bombed, used for a time as a single storey building, and then sold to the Canadian Government and cleared. But, by good fortune, in 1959 the Canadian Government resold it to Her Majesty's Government, and well I remember how delighted I was. Twelve years have passed, but no move has been made even to plan the new building which the National Portrait Gallery so badly needs and which will release its present gallery for adaptation and use by the National Gallery. A long period of inaction reflects no credit on any of us. But now I have authorised the National Portrait Gallery to go ahead with planning their new building and I have promised them the money—something no one else has ever done. It will not cost less than£4 million, and when it is completed it will require substantial grants.
LORD ROBBINS: While expressing delight at the announcement that the noble Viscount has just made, may I say that I hope he will be prepared to redress some injustice to the Trustees of the National Gallery, the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery and the Ministry of which at one time he was the

615
distinguished head. In the years which followed the acquisition of the Hamptons site much time was spent in replanning the whole of the North block of Trafalgar Square. The noble Viscount will recollect that when the Hamptons site was acquired it was at first intended that it should be occupied by an extension of the National Gallery, and it was only after complicated negotiations that a transfer was made in regard to the claim of the National Gallery to the site at the back of the National Gallery and the Hamptons site, in such a way that the National Portrait Gallery should have the Hamptons site.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: All credit to the Trustees of the National Gallery; but they did not succeed in getting anything started. They may have pressed the Government—I am sure they did: first a Conservative Government, and then for six years a Labour Government, but they got nothing done. It is rather odd, is it not, that now I am doing it the Trustees of the National Gallery do not appreciate what I am doing? Never mind. Anyhow, the point at issue is this: is it really fair, when we have to finance great building programmes in so many directions that sums of the order that we require for the Hamptons site—and this is only one of many new projects—should be provided to this one branch of the Arts without any contribution from the users? That is what the Bill is about; and the Amendments, if carried, would make it much more difficult to secure the finance for projects like building on this site and elsewhere. When the dust of this controversy has settled and when the new buildings are completed (I hope in time to cope with the crowds that are coming) I am confident that the policy behind this Bill will be seen to have been in the public interest.
I do not know whether the Opposition intend to divide the Committee. If they do, they would be asking your Lordships to upset established relations between the Government and those of the national museums who have trustees or a governing body, and they would be laying niggling burdens on a hard-pressed Parliament.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: May I ask the noble Viscount for clarification on one small point? I think this is the second
616
time he has mentioned additional burdens being imposed on Parliament. Surely, if these charges are simply laid before Parliament for 40 days and if Parliament has no objection there is no additional burden on Parliament?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: If that is the case, there is no point in laying the charges because if no one is going to look at them and no one is going to object, they must always have been right.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: But surely Parliament should have the opportunity to object?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am not sure whether the noble Viscount was here at the beginning of our debate, but from the speeches we heard from the other side it seemed to be eagerly expected that there would be opportunities for making amendments when these scales of charges were laid. All I can say to the noble Viscount is that if we adopted this principle with all the scales of charges, or even with only 10 per cent. of them, which are now made by Order, Parliament would have additional work, which is certainly not the best way to use its time.
I must come to an end. I simply say that these Amendments are mistaken in principle, they are defective in drafting and they would produce chaos. I must therefore recommend the Committee to resist them.
4.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this Amendment, and also the noble Viscount, the Minister, for deploying his case. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Lee, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for bringing us back to the arguments on the main Amendment. May I say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, for reminding us that this involves a Negative Resolution. I thought at one time that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, did not really appreciate this. I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, did not refer to the precedent that I explained in the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill. He was a Member of the House at the time and we both took part in the lengthy Committee stages of that Bill. It seems to me that that is an answer to what the noble Lord,

617
Lord Robbins, implied might be possible interference with the Trustees. Here was something the Trustees wanted and Parliament was asked merely to approve loans that, against their wishes, the Trustees might be pressurised into making. In this instance all we are asking is that Parliament should have a chance to review the scale of charges.
As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has pointed out, there is nothing in this Bill that does anything but remove impediments. It seems to me that he trusees themselves have a right to impose any charge they like. It is possible, though, that the Government might come to them and ask them to increase the charges. The noble Viscount has said that the charges are a condition of the grant. I am not saying this about him personally but there may be a holder of his office in some future Government who may bring great pressure to bear on the trustees to increase the charges considerably, and Parliament would have absolutely no control over this action. All we are asking is that when the noble
Viscount has made his arrangements he should then lay the statement on the Table. All that will happen is that it will lie on the Table for 40 days, which is not really so chaotic as the noble Viscount seemed to imply, and during that period it will be subject to a Negative Resolution. If there is no such Resolution, the Statement will then become effective.
Nothing that has been said this afternoon persuades me that these Amendments should not be accepted. It is possible—I do not know—that there may be small drafting defects. I was not greatly impressed with the points the noble Viscount made about this, but lawyers can always find defects in drafting. The main thing is the principle, and it is the principle on which I must ask your Lordships to come to a decision.
4.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fiske, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Amherst, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Auckland, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Aylestone, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

St. Just, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hayter, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bernstein, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Hurcombe, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Silkin, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kennet, L.

Soper, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Camoys, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maybray-King, L.

White, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.)

Moyle, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Norwich, V.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Conesford, L.

Eccles, V.

Albemarle, E.

Cowley, E.

Effingham, E.

Amory, V.

Craigavon, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belstead, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Goschen, V.

Bledisloe, V.

de Clifford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Boothby, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brock, L.

Derwent, L.

Hawke, L.

Carrington, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hood, V.

Colgrain, L.

Dudley, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Monck, V.

St. Helens, L.

Ilford, L.

Morrison, L.

Sandford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Strang, L.

Lothian, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Oakshott, L.

Teynham, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Perth, E.

Thomas, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mancroft, L.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Wakefield of Kendal, L

Milverton, L

St. Aldwyn, E.

Windlesham, L.

Molson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ECCLES: In order that the House may hear the Statements which are awaited, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

INDIA/PAKISTAN HOSTILITIES
4.28 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERS-ECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"The outbreak of hostilities between India and Pakistan is a matter of deep concern to Her Majesty's Government and to all Members of the House. We have watched with growing apprehension over the past months the deterioration in relations between the two countries, stemming from the situation in East Pakistan. Despite our efforts and those of other Powers, India and Pakistan have been driven to the calamity of war. Our immediate concern must now be to try to stop the fighting and to contribute to a sane and civilised solution, that takes account of the wishes of the peoples affected.
"When we heard the first reports of attacks and fighting on the borders of India and West Pakistan on December 3 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister appealed to Presi-
620
dent Yahya Khan and Mrs. Gandhi to do all within their power to prevent the spread of conflict. We are also in touch with other Governments.
"Reports on the military situation are confused. It is clear that extensive fighting is taking place within East Pakistan and on the borders of West Pakistan and India, and that the navies and air forces of both countries are engaged. To the extent that it is possible in modern warfare, it appears that the civilian population has not been the object of attack from the air.
"The House will know that the Security Council met on December 4 and again yesterday to consider the situation. It was clear from the start that any resolution calling for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of forces would attract a Russian veto. For their part, Her Majesty's Government have taken the view that there is nothing to be gained by prematurely attempting to introduce abortive resolutions which are bound to be vetoed by one country or another. We are doing all we can to look for ways of overcoming these difficulties and of finding a solution to the desperately complicated issues which gave rise to the outbreak of war. These efforts have not so far been successful, but we shall continue them. The United Nations must have a role to play, not only in the search for ways to stop the fighting, but also in the immense task of reconstruction that will follow.
"There have been no reports of injury to United Kingdom nationals or damage to United Kingdom property in either India or Pakistan. On November 23 the High Commissioner at Islamabad advised United Kingdom nationals in the border districts of Pakistan to consider moving to safer areas while this was possible. Since the outbreak

621
of the fighting he has taken account of the air raids, the restrictions on movements and the suspension of civil air flights and has advised United Kingdom nationals to stay where they are. No evacuation from Pakistan or India is contemplated at present. I am, however, keeping the situation under review and will take any action necessary.
"War can only be a tragedy for all the people of the sub-continent. I can assure the House that we shall do all within our power to persuade those concerned of this view and of the need to tackle the task of reconciliation."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement. The situation seems to he a culmination of many years of fear and suspicion between these countries, and I think it would be wrong for any of us in any way to seek to apportion blame to either side. Certainly I would hope that Her Majesty's Government will make no statement, or do anything, which might in any way diminish what may be an important role for a British Government in mediation between two Commonwealth countries.
We on this side of the House support Her Majesty's Government in their approach at the Security Council, and in particular in not putting forward any resolution of our own at this present moment. I hope the Government will agree that the best course of action now for Her Majesty's Government is quiet work behind the scenes, seeking to bring the various groups within the Security Council together so that they can agree to some resolution that could bring a cease-fire and, in the end, a political settlement in the sub-continent.
I wonder whether the noble Marquess can say anything about a possible arms embargo, and whether any steps could be taken to obtain international support to such an end. I hope that the Government (they may not wish to say so at this moment) are considering ways and means of mounting a considerable aid programme to help not only the many millions who are already in distress but the many more who will be affected as a consequence of the fighting. I presume,
622
too, that Her Majesty's Government are in close contact with the Governments of the Commonwealth, and that throughout this very dangerous and tragic time the Government will always keep Parliament informed upon what is happening.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we share the deep concern which has been expressed by the noble Marquess and also by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, at the way in which the situation has developed between Pakistan and India. We agree with the Government that the main need now is not for heroic resolutions but for quiet work to try to stop the fighting. May I ask two questions? Are the Government satisfied that we are getting accurate and up-to-date information, and, if not, is there any way of improving the means of communication between India, Pakistan and this country? Secondly, there is a report in the headlines at the moment that five British journalists have been arrested in India. I wonder whether the Minister has anything he can tell us about that.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask one question? Does this terrible situation interfere seriously with the relief work which is going on through Oxfam and other organisations? —because such relief work will be needed more than ever at the present time.
THE MARQUESS or LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I answer those noble Lords who have spoken so far? I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Byers, for the way they have received this Statement. I can assure them that I entirely agree that, as I think the Statement says, quiet diplomacy in the United Nations behind the scenes is likely, if anything, to produce the best results; and this is what we are obviously continuing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me two or three questions. One concerned the supply of arms and the possibility of an embargo. I can tell him that this is under consideration at the moment by my right honourable friend in the context of what we are trying to do at the United Nations. I entirely accept his remarks about the need for aid, particularly if and when we get a settlement. We are keeping in touch with the Commonwealth Governments on these matters, especially

623
those who are most concerned in the area. Of course Parliament will also be kept informed as to any developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked me a question which it is a little difficult to answer, as to whether we were satisfied at the amount of information that we are getting. I would not say that one was entirely satisfied, but the position is extremely difficult at the moment. We are looking into it to see whether we can get quicker and more accurate reports. The noble Lord also asked me a question about the five journalists. I understand that the position is (this is what we heard this morning) that these Live journalists have been arrested and have been charged, so we understand, under the Official Secrets Act of India. The High Commission is engaged in efforts in trying to secure their release on bail, but I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord any more at this moment. Naturally our efforts in this regard will continue.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised a most important point. I think it is impossible to tell him precisely how the fighting is affecting the question of aid to refugees. This obviously depends on where the action is taking place. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that this is something that we are watching very carefully, and that we shall give any assistance that we can.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, it distresses me if, in anything I say, I find myself having to disagree in any way with a statement that has been made by my colleague, for whom I have the greatest affection and respect. But I find it hard to accept the point of view that we are completely neutral as between India and Pakistan, keeping in mind that there was a democratically elected Government in East Pakistan that was set aside by a military junta. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House is agreed that what we want to do is to see an end to the fighting and to give the maximum aid. But I think the world in general has done very little compared with the scale of the need. What I cannot agree to is that there is no difference at all between the attitude of India and that of Pakistan. India had 10 million or 11 million refugees. They had to go back to East Pakistan—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE:—and they could not go back in present circumstances.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I respect the sincerity and depth of the noble Baroness's feelings on this matter, but I think it would be more in accordance with our normal proceedings if she could now ask my noble friend a question.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on behalf of the Government, that I agree with him that to apportion blame for this particular outbreak of fighting would not be the wisest course at the present time. At the same time, we have always said that a political solution is what is needed in East and West Pakistan, and of course this is something for which we shall strive. But I think the House will agree that we must, first of all, attempt to get the fighting stopped.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that on a number of occasions I have urged Her Majesty's Government to take action and have warned them that it might be too late? Tragically, that now appears to be the case. While recognising that many of us have strong views about the issues which have led to the war, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of us also now take the view that the overriding need is to bring the hostilities to an end at the earliest possible moment? In addition. may I ask the Minister this question, which I ask very seriously? In view of the deadlock which has occurred in the Security Council, and which is likely to occur in the General Assembly, will Her Majesty's Government consider two suggestions which might help towards ending this situation? The first is to put the embargo on arms supplies all round, balancing the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe with the U.S.A. and China, to which reference has already been made. Secondly, and more positively, will the Government consider the appointment of a Commission of good offices, composed of representatives of uncommitted nations—one can think of Canada or, in Europe, Sweden or Yugoslavia, or one of the Islam nations of

625
North Africa—to seek a cease-fire combined with a political solution in East Bengal, enabling the refugees to return? Will the Minister consider those two suggestions, which are put forward very seriously in the hope that they may contribute to the ending of the war?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lords; I recognise the sincerity that lies behind the noble Lord's two suggestions. Of course I undertake to consider them in the spirit in which he has placed them before your Lordships' House, and to pass his suggestion on to my right honourable friend. But I think the House will agree that perhaps the time for that has not quite come. We must still continue our efforts in the United Nations. I am not yet convinced that that is not the way to find a solution.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it possible to be realistic about this tragic affair? Is the noble Marquess aware that no-one doubts that the Government will use all their power to bring this affair to an end? But is the noble Marquess also aware of the attitude of the Soviet Union, supporting India; of China, supporting Pakistan; and of the United States not knowing where it is, and being in a complete muddle? In that situation, what hope is there of any of the uncommitted nations using influence, if they have any, to bring this affair to an end? Is it not obvious that what should have been done by the Security Council was to act before it began? It now appears to be a bit too late. Nevertheless, is the noble Marquess aware that everybody in this House as well as everybody outside, both in this country and elsewhere, will support the Foreign Secretary and the British Government in the Security Council adopting a realistic attitude and facing the facts, in order to convince the Security Council. China, Russia and the United States—the great Powers—that it is to their advantage, as well as to the advantage of India, Pakistan and the whole world, to bring peace?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think we all share the views expressed in the latter part of his intervention. I am not myself certain that it would have made any difference if the Security Council had been involved earlier, but this is a matter of judgment
626
and argument. But certainly I take the noble Lord's point about what we must do now.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I, as one who was in the middle of one of these disputes some years ago, suggest with great sympathy to the noble Lord who spoke last that there is quite unbelievable tenacity about this historic dispute which goes on in that sub-Continent? In that connection, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he would care to comment at all on the possibility of the matter going to the General Assembly, if the deadlock in the Security Council persists?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is certainly a distinct possibility. I should not like to say how probable it is, but if the deadlock persists in the Security Council it may be that the matter will be referred to the General Assembly.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very sad that, contrary to the hopes of so many of us 25 years ago, events have developed in such a way that it is to-day unrealistic to hope that the Commonwealth collectively can arbitrate in a dispute like this? Looking hack to 25 years ago, many of us hoped that when a tragic situation of this kind arose the Commonwealth collectively might be able to do something helpful about it. Does my noble friend agree that it would be a marvellous thing if we could only get back to some situation like that?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I think my noble friend was quite right when he said in his opening remarks that we had gone beyond that stage. It is unfortunate, but I think what lie said is true.

M.P.s AND MINISTERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES
4.48 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure the last thing your Lordships would wish is that I should stand for too long between your Lordships and my noble friend the Paymaster General. But I should like with permission, to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend

627
the Lord President of the Council on the Boyle Report. Mr. Whitelaw's Statement was as follows:
"On December 4 last I announced to the House the Government's intention with all-Party agreement to refer the question of Members' and Ministers' pay to the independent Review Body under the chairmanship of Lord Boyle.
"Accordingly that body was asked by the Government to consider what changes were desirable in the emoluments, allowances and expenses of Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons, including Mr. Speaker and other holders of remunerated offices in both Houses of Parliament, and in the relevant pension arrangements.
"The Review Body's Report has now been received and is being published to-day. In paragraph 121 of their Report the Review Body state:
'We have been conscious of the declared intention of the present Government to implement our proposals unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. We have regarded this as placing on us an added responsibility to keep our recommendations for increases and improvements to the absolute minimum which we consider to be necessary. It is in our view of the highest importance that these rcommendations both as they affect salaries and allowances should now be implemented as a whole and in full."
Parenthetically, may I remind noble Lords that there are copies in the Printed Paper Office?
"The Government intends to respond to this strong expression of the Review Body by accepting the proposals of the Report, subject to further discussion with the Parties, and with the House authorities, regarding the detailed implementation of the proposed new allowances for Members.
"The Resolutions on Members' pay and allowances will be introduced to take effect from January 1, 1972. The legislation necessary to give effect to the changes in the salaries of Ministers and other office holders will be introduced shortly so as to permit of increases from April 1, 1972. That dealing with the new pension arrangements will be introduced as soon as possible."
That, my Lords, concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl. This is always a very delicate issue to discuss, and I should like in a moment to say something about allowances in the House of Lords. But perhaps I might first comment briefly after only a quick look at the Report. I am sure that no-one in this House would grudge Members of another place a proper reward, and from what I have seen I would not say that what is proposed for Members of Parliament is anything which could be called in any way excessive. But looking at the office holders, I am a little surprised. It appears that there will be special allowances for Members of Parliament and, as I understand, for Ministers in another place; but once again I think that the Lords in Waiting have not been treated generously. I doubt whether, even now, they are up to what the Lawrence Report recommended. though I have not been able to check on that.
Perhaps I may put one or two questions, speaking as one of the office holders mentioned—the lowest paid, except for my noble friend Lord Beswick, of all the office holders, and therefore not entitled to any of the House of Lords allowances. Indeed, I think it would have paid my noble friend Lord Beswick not to take his salary. I would ask the noble Earl to bear it in mind that there are a number of noble Lords who come here very faithfully and who, with the rising cost of living, are finding it increasingly difficult to come here at all. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I know that the noble Earl, with whom I have discussed it on a number of occasions, is personally sympathetic. May I ask him whether he will make a redoubled effort to overcome the indifference of Ministers to your Lordships' problems; and may I also ask whether any announcement is expected in the near future? If he cannot answer that question. will he at least indicate in some way, if this is possible—by a nod, or something like that—that he is really making a very big effort? I would stress that noble Lords do a great deal of unpaid work in your Lordships' House, and I do not think the present rate of allowances is enough to remunerate them—or, rather I should say, not to remunerate them but even to ensure that they are not out of pocket through being here.

629
May I also raise a point about pensions? Again I have not had a chance to study this Report, but the noble Earl will be aware that it includes proposals for improvements in pensions of Members of Parliament. I welcome those, but here again there are in your Lordships' House a number of former Members of Parliament who are still on the old rate. Ought they not to be brought up to the current rates, as has been done for the Civil Service?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said, but in doing so I should like, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues for the admirable and informative Report which they have produced. I would make only one point to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. There is a great deal of public ignorance about the salaries of Members of Parliament, about Ministers' salaries and about office holders' salaries. I am just wondering whether it would not be wiser to have a review at more frequent intervals than once every seven years. In the last seven years the cost of living has gone up 44 per cent., and this means that there will necessarily be—and I stress the word "necessarily"—a substantial increase for all those concerned. To the public, however, it will look as though the increase is excessive, which it certainly is not.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks which the two noble Lords have made, and thank them meanwhile for their general disposition towards the Statement which I repeated; and in so doing I would reciprocate what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said about the emoluments and allowances of Members of another place. This is a delicate matter, and it is ground on which I do not myself propose to be drawn, other than to say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said about the informative nature of this Report. I think it would be a great mistake, not only for us inside your Lordships' House but above all for the general public, to prejudge this until they have digested the very careful and informative Report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues. I think we are all indebted to
630
the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues for a very thorough Report indeed.
My Lords, as for the particular points on which the two noble Lords asked me questions, may I briefly reply as follows? In the first place, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the emoluments of Lords in Waiting. Under the Boyle Committee's recommendations, those will rise from£3,000 a year to£4,500 a year, which will be£500 more than the emoluments of other Government Whips in another place.
LORD SHACKLETON: But no allowances.
EARL JELLICOE: But those in the other place have the allowances. All I should like to say is that I am very well aware of the very special requirements which are imposed upon Lords in Waiting in your Lordships' House. I had the honour to give evidence to the Boyle Committee, and I certainly represented that aspect to them; but I think that here and in other respects we must abide by the recommendations of the Boyle Committee.
So far as pension arrangements are concerned, here again the matter is fairly complicated. It is gone into in some detail in paragraphs 114 to 116 of the Committee's Report, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition may wish to glance at those paragraphs. At this stage I should like merely to draw his attention to the fact that Ministers in this place will in future, if these recommendations are given effect to, be included in the special pensions arrangements which are foreshadowed in the Boyle Committee's Report.
On the frequency of reviews, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, and he will see that in the final paragraph of the Boyle Committee's Report they suggest that, in future, reviews should be at intervals of not more than four years. I think this is the effect of their recommendation; and, of course, like the other recommendations in the Report, it has been accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government.
The question of Peers' expenses and allowances was not a matter which fell within the terms of reference of the Boyle Committee. The basis of the

631
allowance was, of course, discussed by the Lawrence Committee; since then the point at issue has been the question of the rate. All I would say is that I am very conscious of the services rendered by noble Lords to Parliament. I am also very conscious of the sacrifices which those services call for from a great many noble Lords. I believe that it would be a great mistake for me to be drawn too far at this stage, and I hope that noble Lords will not wish to pursue this particular point now. I assure them that this matter is very much in my mind at the present time, and I have much in mind the representations which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just made to me across the Floor of your Lordships' House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not rise to say anything about the office which I hold and which my noble friend embarrassingly mentioned. I had not myself asked for anything, and do not particularly want anything. But I do rise to speak about a body of men and women who have not been met at all in this Report. Practically every Minister or Member has had representations made with regard to emoluments, expenses or allowances excepting those who served in the other place prior to 1964. They are not dealt with at all, and it seems to me that here is what I can only call a conspicuous piece of selfishness on the part of those who made representations. It is said in paragraph 53 that Members who retired before 1964 are not covered by the Member's pension scheme. Those who were still serving at that time and had prior service were accorded service credit to a maximum of 10 years. I should have thought that those who served up to 1964 would have been credited in the same way as those who had one day's or two days' service after 1964. All that they now have by way of pension is from what the Report delicately calls a quasi-benevolent fund. I think that the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal might well give some thought to this. Certain Members of another place who retired before 1964 serve in this House and some do not; but they are part of the Parliamentary fabric and I should think that the noble Earl might see fit to make some representations.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I declare a personal interest and say that it is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out, that those who served in the House of Commons—some, including myself, for over 30 years before the War—get no pension at all and no consideration of any sort or kind. Some of them are pretty hard up. I approached my noble friend Lord Boyle on this subject. He said that it was not strictly within his terms of reference, although he had some sympathy. The question I want to ask the noble Earl is whether the Government, when they consider this Report and before finally deciding on action, will give consideration to those who gave many many years of service in another place before 1964 (some of whom are pretty hard up at the present time), who for reasons quite exceptional, possibly elevation to this House, had to leave that House before 1964 and who get no pension of any kind, however long they have served.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, my noble friends on the Front Bench have called attention to two groups who appear to have been omitted from this Report; namely, the pre-1964 Members of the House of Commons and those Members of this House (and, probably some outside it) who already receive a pension. Would the noble Earl consider a third category which seems to have fallen between two stools: namely, those who served both before 1964 and after 1964, who are qualified but not yet old enough to receive a pension but who, so as far as I can see from a brief reading of the Report, will not qualify for the new arrangements because they apply only to those who are Members of the House of Commons now? Will the noble Earl make representations about that?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider another category? I make no plea myself, because I do not happen to be hard up like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. Is the noble Earl aware that I served for far longer than 30 years? I went to the House of Commons in 1922 and actually served 42½ years. Yet I receive the same pension as anybody with 10 years' service who qualified at the age of 65. May I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that those of us who served when expenses were£400 a year and who suffered

633
privations over a long period of years think it about time that some of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, were made retrospective?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, despite the privations that the noble Lord has suffered, he looks remarkably well. Nevertheless, I should like to say straight away that I have been impressed by the strength and sincerity of the arguments advanced by the last four speakers. I will see that their representations are brought not only to my own attention but to that of my right honourable friends who are intimately concerned with the matter. More than that I cannot undertake; but that I do undertake.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("by order") and insert ("by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This Amendment refers to Clause 1(2) which allows the Secretary of State for Scotland to order, vary or revoke various provisions concerning any enactments, contracts, trust deeds or other instruments. I am not clear from the wording in the Bill whether there is any appeal against such an order. The wording merely says: "he may by order vary or revoke such provisions". I should like to ask the Minister whether a Statutory Instrument could be laid before Parliament which would be subject to annulment if the Secretary of State wishes to make an order of this kind. I am particularly concerned about this because the Nathan Report (mentioned by the noble Viscount on Second Reading) when referring to procedure in Scotland says in paragraph 347:
"After a scheme has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, the governing body of the trust may petition the Court of Session for an amendment of the scheme or for the substitution of a new scheme, and in amending the scheme or framing a new scheme the Court have the like powers as are conferred on the Secretary of State by the Act.
634
Alternatively the governing body or certain other interested persons or bodies may petition the Secretary of State to have the scheme laid before Parliament. In the latter case either House may pray Her Majesty to withhold approval of the scheme or part of it. It will be noted that this procedure gives jurisdiction to the Court of Session to decide questions of law and procedure and to Parliament to decide questions of policy …"
As the question of admission charges would appear to be a question of policy, I wonder whether this comes into the ambit of the second alternative proposed by the Nathan Committee. I shall be interested in what the noble Viscount has to say on this. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The Committee will realise that I am not an expert on Scottish law, but I will do my best to respond to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The procedure in England is that where an Act of Parliament has to be varied in order to make a scheme for a charitable trust the Secretary of State must do this by Statutory Instrument. Turning to Scotland, there is one Act of a local nature passed in 1855 which has to be varied in respect of the Royal Scottish Museum. That is one of the museums which we call "Departmental" and which is run by the Secretary of State. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to act in this case by Statutory Instrument because he has to vary a local Act of 1855. If the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment we are quite prepared to bring forward an Amendment to provide that where the Secretary of State has to vary an Act of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill he will do it by Statutory Instrument.
Turning to the other variations of the trusts which will be required in Scotland in order to bring in the system of charges, they do not involve an Act of Parliament; and we think that they are best made by order. I will try to describe the procedure in Scotland, which I have had to look up within the last two days. When a body of trustees in Scotland wish to have a new scheme made to vary some provision in their trust it can be done by the trustees going to the Scottish courts. It is a lengthy procedure, but no doubt it is done in that way. I imagine that that was the state of affairs as described in the Nathan Report, dated, I think, 1950. Since then, and I believe during

635
the time of the last Government, the Secretary of State has taken special powers to make orders when he is varying charitable trusts pertaining to educational endowments. In other words, he has the same power, when it is an educational endowment, to make an order without going to the courts. But his powers do not extend to charitable trusts formed in relation to works of art, whereas the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, being embodied in our 1960 Charities Act, do so extend; in fact they are much wider. In the next Amendment we shall come to the question, which the noble Lord wishes to raise, whether the provisions of the English 1960 Act should apply to Scotland.
We do not think it is worth while, for the sake of, I think it is, two cases, both concerned with paintings—the Torrie Collection and the collection of Turner drawings—to change the procedure; we take the view that this can be done by order. Noble Lords will appreciate that the applicant for the change in the trust will be the National Gallery of Scotland, because they are the Trustees. It is they who will come to the Secretary of State and say, "We cannot do what you want us to do—that is, to introduce a system of charges—if a very small proportion of our collections are subject to trusts, one of 1845 and the other of 1900, which stipulate that these particular objects should be shown free of charge". Therefore, in order that the policy which has been laid down shall work, they will apply to the Secretary of State and he will make the order. Since that is, not exactly but roughly, the equivalent of what my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher will do in relation to any such trust pertaining to the national museums in England, it seems to me that it is sufficient to leave the Bill as it stands. But we will introduce an Amendment to provide that the Secretary of State shall proceed by Statutory Instrument in cases where he has to alter an Act of a local nature. Therefore, if the noble Lord will now agree to withdraw his Amendment, I will put down an Amendment which embodies the change I have mentioned to bring the Scottish practice as near in line as we can under this Bill.
LORD GARDINER: I wonder whether the Minister can help us any further with regard to the cases where it is not necessary to alter an enactment. If he has already said anything to cover this on the previous Amendment, I apologise. Owing to the fact that I have been sitting judicially this afternoon, I regret that I did not hear the earlier speeches. On the face of it, this is a strong thing to do, is it not? A man is charitable, generous and patriotic; he owns a valuable collection of pictures which he gives, in his lifetime, to a gallery, or leaves it to the gallery on his death. He can of course attach such conditions as he likes, including, as I understand is the case in respect of some of the Scottish ones in particular, a condition that the pictures are shown to the public free of charge. The gallery, on its part, is in no way obliged to accept the gift. If it thinks the conditions are too onerous it can decline the gift. If it accepts the gift it is, I apprehend, both illegal and dishonourable for the gallery to take the pictures and then break the conditions in the man's lifetime; and it is probably legal, but also dishonourable, to wait until his death and then break the conditions.
The clause as it is now drafted means, as I understand it, that, in the case of any such contract or declaration of trust, a Minister, without Parliamentary approval, can simply make an order validating the breach of contract or breach of trust. It is of course true that under the Charities Acts both the Commissioners, and also, in some cases, Ministers can make orders varying trusts. I am not an authority on the Charities Acts, but the noble Viscount referred on Second Reading to the Charities Act 1960 as being his authority. That was not one made during the lifetime of the last Government, as he has just said. I have looked at that Act, and while it is true that orders can be made, there are rights of appeal to the courts; and while regulations can be made by Ministers, those regulations, so far as I have followed the Act, have to be made by Statutory Instruments which are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. It is, I suggest, a strong thing for a Minister, without any reference to Parliament at all, to be able to make an order of this kind. If I may say so, in this century,

637
whatever Party is in power, there has been an increasing tendency for an increase in the powers of the Executive at the expense of Parliament. The question I should particularly like to ask is: what real objection is there to a Minister making an order by Statutory Instrument and subjecting it to the Negative Resolution procedure?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I have some sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said. I have always held the view that unless we respect the wishes of donors we may not get so much given to museums. But now I am on the other side of the table and I have, as best I can, to explain what is the position. I think I am right in saying that the change in the law, made quite recently in Scotland relative to educational endowments, took away the obligation to lay a Statutory Instrument. That is to say, if some testator or body of people established a school for one purpose, and it turns out that there are not any children of that kind left, you go to the Secretary of State and you get a variation, and it is done, I understand, in roughly the same way as the Charity Commissioners do in England. When the Charity Commissioners act under the 1960 Act, no Statutory Instrument is laid before Parliament. The problem raised by the Amendment is whether we should oblige the Secretary of State to proceed by Statutory Order in respect of all kinds of variations that are to be made on account of introducing charges, or only when those variations require a change in an existing Act, even of a local nature. We have considered this problem in the short time available to us and thought it right to meet the point in the Amendment for cases when the Secretary of State has to vary an Act, because this requirement is still laid on the Secretary of State for Education and Science. On the other hand, we thought it was reasonable to assimilate trusts in relation to works of art to the procedure which is now the procedure in Scotland in relation to educational endowments. This is really a matter of Scots law for the Scots themselves but it seems perfectly reasonable to me, if the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this Amendment, that we should take it back and discuss it with the Law Officers advising my right honourable friend the Secretary of State
638
for Scotland on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I think it would be unwise for me to wade in further on a subject of which I know very little.
LORD AIREDALE: The Minister told us earlier that in the case of the National Gallery of Scotland it would be the Trustees of the Gallery who would come forward and make the application. May I ask whether in fact the Trustees have any discretion in this matter at all or whether we shall have another situation exactly similar to that in subsection (1), in which the Trustees will simply be told by Her Majesty's Government, "You had better come forward and make this application—or else"?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: That is not really the way in which the relations between the Scottish Office and the Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland are carried on. As the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, has said, once the decision of Parliament is made, they must carry it out as best they can. This is an extraordinarily complex matter. It appears that if someone leaves a picture to a gallery, with the provision that it is to be seen free, it means that only that picture should be seen free. We had a case of that kind, when His late Majesty King George V left some uniforms to the National Maritime Museum on condition that they be seen free. If they are put in a case in the hall alongside the turnstiles, the museum can comply with that provision. But the lawyers tell me that it is difficult to say what this word "free" means in some of these old documents. I think that it would be the commonsense view of any body of trustees, which had a large collection which they wished to display to the public, that the whole system of access by the public to that museum which was now to be arranged should not be held up because of only one or two objects out of the whole collection. It is for that reason that I think it is expected that the Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland will apply for this variation. This is a serious thing, which one does not like to do. But it is done almost every day, because the present is not the same as the past, and the conditions which testators would have approved of in the past they would probably not approve of now. We have

639
to have some system of bringing these things up-to-date.
LORD AIREDALE: It is very curious that lawyers have such difficulty in knowing what the word "free" means when everybody else knows exactly what it means.
LORD STOW HILL: May I make a small technical point and apologise for it? Perhaps I misunderstood what the noble Viscount said. In inviting my noble friend to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment on the basis that the Government would consider an Amendment with regard to subsection (1), which would require the Minister to proceed by statutory order if and in so far as the imposition of charges would involve the contravention or alteration of an enactment, I thought he said that it would not be necessary to make that provision with regard to subsection (2). He drew a distinction between the trustees of works of art and of educational trusts, and I thought he was saying that in order to proceed under subsection (2) it would not be necessary to contravene an enactment and, therefore. that the proposed Amendment would not have to apply to subsection (2). I daresay I have got the noble Viscount wrong, but I notice that the language of the subsection says:
In so far as the provisions of any enactment. contract, trust deed or other instrument are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, inconsistent with the making of charges for admission…"
That would seem to suggest that at any rate in some cases in connection with Scotland it would be necessary for the Amendment to apply to both subsections.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The subsection refers only to Scotland and I was unaware that the Amendment had any effect whatever on subsection (1). It is because there is this one single enactment in Scotland that needs to be varied that we are suggesting that line 22 should read that the Secretary of State may vary by Statutory Instrument or, in some cases, by order.
LORD STOW HILL: I am very much obliged and entirely understand.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation and also to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, to my noble friend
640
Lord Stow Hill and to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for their remarks. I am heartened by what the Minister has said and of course I will withdraw my Amendment. He gave only a qualified promise and we shall wish to study the rest of his remarks. On Second Reading the noble Viscount mentioned the Erskine Collection in Edinburgh and gave the impression that that had been transferred to the National Gallery of Scotland. I am informed that this is not so; that it is still the property of the University of Edinburgh but is on permanent loan. It was a stipulation of the original will, when these paintings were bequeathed, that they should be shown free; and, not only that, but also that all the other paintings with them should be exhibited free as well. So this Bill will seek to alter that. As we can return to the problems of the Eskine Collection and of other collections in Edinburgh on a subsequent Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of any order made under the preceding subsection, the Charities Act 1960 shall apply to Scotland.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down for information. On Second Reading the noble Viscount said that Clause 1(1) is necessary because the Charities Act 1960 does not apply to Scotland. The Amendment seeks to make it apply for the purposes of this order. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: This Amendment really does land us into very deep water. I am advised that we cannot apply the relevant sections of the English Charities Act to Scotland. It seems to me that the procedures which we follow in England have some attractions, because notice has to be given that a scheme is going to be made, how the public can make inquiries about it and where they may see a draft of the scheme. The Charity Commissioners go through all that process before the Secretary of State for Education and Science or the Secretary of State for Wales makes an order.
This all starts from a definition of "charity". Obviously, if you do not

641
know what "charity" is, you cannot put this procedure into operation. I am advised that there is no definition of "charity" in Scotland. They manage their affairs extremely well, as we know—better than we do in most cases—but this is a mystery to me. But they have several types of procedure which I have mentioned before. In Scotland you can go straight to the courts if you want to get a variation. There is power under the educational endowments for the Secretary of State to do it by order. But you could not, so I am advised, transfer to Scotland a large lump of our Act: I am told that there some of the words do not mean the same thing, and so on. Anything of that nature would require long consideration if at any time the Secretary of State thought it wise to bring in a new Charities Act for Scotland. Of course, I have not the slightest idea whether such a thing would commend itself to my right honourable friend. However, I have to tell the Committee that the advice I have, which is of an extremely firm nature, is that it simply would not legally be possible to make the whole of our Act apply to Scotland.
Therefore, when a trust has to be varied in relation to some collection that has been given to a Scottish museum, we have to find a procedure that satisfies us that it is adequate and just. We were talking about that matter on the previous Amendment. I am inclined to think that we shall have a procedure which will meet with approval if we make the small change that we proposed in the previous Amendment and leave the Secretary of State to make his orders, according to the procedures which he now adopts when he is carrying out his changes for educational endowments.
LORD GARDINER: Am I not right in thinking that under the English law of charity, and, for all I know, in relation to educational trusts in Scotland, if you apply to the court you have to establish a case? It is not good enough just to say that the circumstances are now somewhat different and it is convenient if you can get rid of an obligation which hitherto you have had to accept. In particular, in the case of the British Museum, where we know that no charges have been made since its foundation—and this has gone on through two world wars, in good times
642
and in bad times—it would be a little difficult, I should have thought, to satisfy the court that, because the Government wanted to put pressure on Trustees to make charges which the Trustees did not want to make, this was a good reason why somebody who had left a collection of pictures to a gallery on the express terms, accepted by the Trustees, that they would be shown free, should have this term varied.
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is saying that, apart from a case where it is necessary to vary an enactment, what will happen is that, whatever the Trustees want, the Minister will say to them: "As you know, your money comes from me, and just as I insisted on your making charges, now I must deal with clearing up the contract you have made that you will show them free." Nobody will know about this. He will not have to go to any court, and he will not have to lay anything before Parliament. The whole thing would be done, and the declaration for trust varied, without anybody knowing it. What is the objection to his saying what he has done and putting it before Parliament for decision by Negative Resolution procedure?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: If the Secretary of State is thought to have behaved improperly, he can be taken to the courts now. The application will be made by the Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland. If they thought that the Secretary of State had not even bothered to read the papers, or could prove some form of improper behaviour, they could now, under the ordinary law of Scotland, bring him into court. But since it is going to be part and parcel of the way in which access to the collections as a whole is to be conducted in future, so long as the Secretary of State pursues the sort of procedure that we have in England, that will be all right. Whether he will do that, and how far he will go into it, I am afraid I do not know.
This Amendment was put down on Friday when I was out of London, and I have had only Monday morning in which to look at it. I do not think this is a particularly serious matter, because we are advised that there are only these three cases. In the one case, that of the Torrie pictures, the noble Lord is perfectly right: there has been a long standing dispute between the university and

643
the National Gallery as to who owns these pictures. We do not really know. I believe that there is a notice under each one now, to the effect that although the picture is hanging in the National Gallery, it really belongs to the university. But there is some difference of opinion here. Then there is the collection of Turner drawings. Here I think everybody will know, after all that has gone on about this Bill, that it will not be a matter of mystery that the National Gallery is applying for a variation of the bequest. I am sorry, but I cannot give the exact procedure by which the Secretary of State makes his orders. I know, however, that he makes them in this manner, without any Statutory Instrument, for all variations in the educational endowments. That is not something new.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said. I am sure we shall wish to study it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.37 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Power of Court to annul or amend institution's determination to make charges for admission.
(".—(1) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Act, if the trustees or other governing body of any of the institutions to which this Act relates determine to make charges for admission to any such institution whether or not they so determine in pursuance of or in consequence of any order made by the Secretary of State under the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act or of any exercise by the Commissioners of any of the powers conferred upon them by the Charities Act 1960 or otherwise, the High Court in the case of any such institution situate in England or Wales and the Court of Session in the case of any such institution situate in Scotland shall have power upon application being made to the Court in that behalf in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) below to annul or amend any such determination in such respects as shall seem just to the Court, if the grounds set out in subsection (3) below are established.
(2) Any such application as is mentioned in the preceding subsection shall be made by any person or persons having an interest whether legal or equitable under the terms of any contract, trust deed or other instrument
644
affecting property which is exhibited or which it is intended to exhibit for public view in any institution to which this Act relates and not by any other person or persons.
(3) The grounds referred to in subsection (1) above are that to make charges in pursuance of any such determination would be contrary to the wishes express or implied or to any direction express or implied of any settlor or testator of such property in any such contract, trust deed or other instrument under the terms of which such property was settled or bequeathed to an unreasonable extent and it shall be presumed that the making of such charges was to an unreasonable extent contrary to such wishes or direction unless it is shown that there were special reasons which made it necessary or expedient to make such charges.")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 7, which deals with the insertion of provision for the power of the court to annul or amend an institution's determination to make charges for admission. This of course is a similar field to that covered by the Amendments that we have been discussing earlier. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. said that he thought that the Charities Act was working satisfactorily. In some instances. I would disagree with that. For example, the case I have in mind is the recent sale under the terms of the Charities Act, of the Dominican from the Dulwich Art Gallery. This was part of a collection of a man called Bourgeois, donated in 1810 in the Dulwich Art Gallery. He had originally wished to leave it to the British Museum, but he heard that they had powers of sale—which they had at that time—and he changed his mind. The painting remained at the Dulwich Art Gallery until earlier this year. Then the trustees decided that they wanted to raise some money, and they applied to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to sell the painting. The Secretary of State, without, to my knowledge, consulting anybody (and I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is here, because he is a member of the Standing Committee on Museums and Galleries), not even the Standing Committee on Museums and Galleries, gave her permission for the sale to go ahead. Of course there was a happy ending, because Scotland stepped in, not for the first time, and bought the painting for Edinburgh, where I am glad to say it remains. If it had not been for Scotland's action, of course, the painting might have been sold abroad.
Here, it seems to me, is a case where the trustees want something and the Secretary of State agrees without asking anybody, and members of the public and interested parties—even bodies such as the National Art Collections Fund—seem to have no redress. Therefore this Amendment seeks to give the right to appeal to the High Court in England and Wales and in the Court of Session in Scotland. This is a rather broader Amendment than the other two because it gives the right to any of the museums and galleries in the United Kingdom, and not just those in Scotland.
The second subsection details the persons who can make this appeal, and the third sets out the grounds on which it can be made. I am very concerned that under the present wording of the Bill the Secretary of State may have the power to override the expressed wishes of the testators, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said, even with the concurrence of the trustees; and some future Paymaster General or Secretary of State may come to the trustees and say, "Unless you override the terms of this trust we won't give you any money." As the noble Viscount has made clear throughout, the trustees' actions are dependent on the Government's providing money, and I think this is causing considerable concern. So I would submit to the Committee that there is a case for some appeal provision to be written into the Bill. I beg leave to move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I think that if the Committee will look at this clause it will be seen that we really cannot go as far as this Amendment goes, in giving to courts power which should properly remain with Parliament. The new clause says that, where a scheme of charges has been made which requires some variation in one of the trusts covering some part of the collections, if somebody should object (and I will come in a moment to possible objectors) the matter shall go to the High Court; and the High Court is given power to annul or amend the scheme. But, of course, the charges are not being made in respect of the one picture or ten pictures, or whatever may be the number in the collection or trust which is being varied. The scheme of charges is for the whole
646
museum, and to give the High Court the power to alter, or even annul, the whole scheme of charges is really to transfer a question of policy from the Government to the Court. It might be perfectly reasonable to ask the Court whether the case made for varying the trust was, in their opinion, right or not. There is an appeal to the Court now, under Section 18(11) of the Charities Act on that point. But to allow persons to go to the Court and say, "We want you to tell us whether there are to be charges or not"; or, what is in a way even worse, "We think the charges are too high because the testator would not have minded lop but the charge is 20p", and then to give the Court the power it would have under this Amendment to change the scale of charges is something which I think noble Lords would not want to put into a Bill.
Subsection (2) of the Amendment says that:
"Any such application as is mentioned in the preceding subsection shall be made by any person or persons having an interest whether legal or equitable under the terms of any contract, trust deed or other instrument affecting property which is exhibited or which it is intended to exhibit to the public view…"
and so on. Now I am informed that there would not be anybody in this country who could apply, because there are no contracts which affect property in this way and it would always be the case that the only people who could make application would be the trustees; and they would be the gallery concerned, and would not make it unless they wanted it to be made. I do not know if I am right, but it looks as though there is a suggestion that somebody might make an application—it might be some relation of the family, or a person having an interest, legal, equitable or something of that kind. But the Court, I am advised, would not recognise any such person. It would recognise only the people who were entrusted with the property. If I make a trust of a cigarette box and present it to a museum, I cannot afterwards say that I have the power to wish to vary that trust. I have given the box away, and there would not be anybody who could apply under Section 2 in England. I do not know exactly what happens in Scotland: I have not been able to find out. I also think it would be extremely

647
difficult to judge what was an unreasonable extent of varying a trust. Altogether I would simply rest my observations on this particular Amendment on the fact that we could not hand over to the courts the power either to vary the rates of charges or to annul the whole scheme. Therefore, although I appreciate what the noble Lord wants to do, which is to have every possible safeguard so that there is no abuse of a trust in relation to works of art, I must advise the Committee that this is not the way to do it.
5.48 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to detain your Lordships on this Amendment. but I cannot help thinking that perhaps upon further examination the noble Viscount may think that there is more merit in it than he obviously thinks at the moment. The purpose of the Amendment is one which I think would be generally accepted by the House. Supposing that a settlor, a testator or somebody who wishes to settle property—say, a collection of valuable pictures—on trust settles it upon trustees upon terms that the trustees will cause the pictures to be exhibited without any charge being made to the public or to other persons for looking at those pictures. Let us assume that is the situation. I thought, especially from the Committee's response to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, that your Lordships were very sympathetic as a whole to the idea, which I certainly would propound myself, that where a settlor has clearly expressed a wish of that sort it should, unless it is inevitable that it cannot be regarded, be taken into account and observed. There is, I think, something rather repugnant in the idea that if somebody settles upon trustees, upon trust, a collection of valuable pictures, which are perhaps in a gallery or some other place, to be exhibited free of charge to anybody who wishes to look at them and enjoy them, the settlor's wishes can be wholly disregarded. I really do not think there is as much difficulty about this Amendment as the noble Viscount says.
What does the Amendment propose? I was told by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi of a settlor who settled a collection of pictures, and it was his clear wish
648
that no charge should be made for looking at those pictures. In that case, supposing those who run the gallery decide to make a charge to the public for looking at pictures, including those pictures, any person who comes within the category of persons described in subsection (2) may make an application to the High Court, in the case of an English trust, or to the Court of Session in the case of a Scottish trust. He has to show that he comes within the scope of subsection (2), and in order to establish that he has to show that he has either a legal or an equitable interest in those pictures, in that settled property, under the terms (if I may speak compendiously) of an instrument; namely, a deed of trust, affecting those pictures. He may be one of the trustees for the time being; the trust may have been executed a hundred years ago, and successive trustees may have been appointed. If he is one of those trustees, he fans within the description of a person who has a legal interest in those pictures under the terms of that trust affecting those pictures. I do not think there is much difficulty about that.
He may be a beneficiary under the trust; a gallery may be a beneficiary. Somebody could have an equitable interest as a beneficiary administering, or taking part with others in administering, the affairs of the gallery. He would have an equitable interest under the terms of the trust affecting those pictures. If he establishes that he comes within the category of persons described in subsection (2), he can apply to the appropriate court, but he will get no relief unless he can establish the grounds set out in subsection (3). The relief that he asks for is that the determination to impose charges should be altered, or disallowed. In order to obtain that relief, what he has to show is that the determination to impose charges contravenes the wishes of the original settlor to an unreasonable extent. The settlor in an assumed case says, "I wish my pictures to be enjoyed by the public for ever free of charge." The assumed determination entirely disregards that and imposes a substantial charge. He will not obtain any relief from the court unless he shows that that order is unreasonable; that the determination to impose charges conflicts with the settlor's wishes to an unreasonable extent.

649
If the noble Viscount will look at the remaining wording of the Amendment, he will see that the onus is thrown upon those who wish to impose the charges of establishing to the satisfaction of the court that it is next to inevitable that the charges should be imposed. The relevant words are:
"… it shall be presumed that the making of such charges was to an unreasonable extent contrary to such wishes or direction unless it is shown"—
that is, where the onus is shifted—
"that there were special reasons which made it necessary or expedient to make such charges".
There may well be special reasons. It may be the case that it is quite impossible to maintain the gallery without making those charges. It may be the case that the pictures in question are a small and unimportant part of the display in the gallery. On the other hand, you may have a case where it cannot be shown that it is essential to make the charges, or essential to make the charges in respect of every day of the week. It may be sufficient to make the charges for four or five days in the week; or the actual charges may be lower than those proposed. If you have a gallery in which the pictures in question form the substantial and major part of the collection, there is a prima facie reason for much reluctance in going against the wishes of the testator. If the gallery in substance is centred upon his collection, and it has been his wish that no charges should be made, and it cannot be shown that it is necessary in order to maintain the finances of the gallery to make a charge in respect of every day in the week on which the pictures are exhibited, the court may well think that it will be quite sufficient if the charges are made on four out of seven days of the week, and alter the determination accordingly. I hope that the noble Viscount will give some further thought to this matter. This is an Amendment which is modest in scope. It is not one which is designed to overturn in most cases the whole order; it is simply designed to apply to the case where it can be shown that those responsible for the determination are flouting to an unnecessary and unreasonable extent the clearly expressed desire of the person who collected the pictures and settled them under the terms of a trust. I hope that
650
the noble Lord will say that he will be able to give the matter further consideration.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers who advised me this morning said exactly the opposite to what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has now said. As a layman, I must stick to the basic objection. There is already an appeal to the courts against an order which the Secretary of State may make for making a new scheme. The appeal may be made if it is thought that the order is unreasonable, or perhaps the behaviour of the Secretary of State improper, or something of that kind. In the 1960 Act provision is already made for an appeal to the courts. But the matter under consideration is quite different. This is saying to the courts that, in respect of one variation of a trust, the High Court, Her Majesty's Judges, shall have the power to amend the whole scheme of charges for the gallery.
In most cases, as I said before, it will appear that the words in the testator's will mean, "I charge you to show this object free to the public". But that does not cover everything in the museum. Why should the courts be able to lay down a policy and change rates of entrance fees? I think the noble Lord must consider whether this is a proper job for the courts. Unless I am badly advised, I believe that what the noble Lord said about the phrase "legal or equitable" is dubious. It is a phrase which does not exist in Scotland, so we could not apply this part of the Bill to Scotland. I understand that the trustees are the people who have the legal interest in a trust. They will make the application, so they will not take it to the court. The people who have the equitable interest are loosely described as the "beneficiaries". I believe it is true—and I looked up this matter as quickly as I could this morning—that if you take a case like the London Library, where there are subscribers, the subscribers might be considered to have a beneficial interest in the Library, and they might possibly come into this. I am advised that no court would recognise anybody who visited a museum as having a beneficial interest under a particular trust. Therefore, it looks as though I was right in what I said before: that there will he no applicants under this. In other words,

651
putting the matter in common language, this will not work.
I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, not to ask us to give over to the courts the determination of the whole scheme of charges because one part of the collection—small or considerable, I am not arguing about the size—is subject to a trust which the trustees themselves have asked to have varied in order that the charges scheme may work. I do not think that is reasonable, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I wonder whether the noble Viscount would answer this point? He said that there would normally be no beneficiaries that could be defined. But supposing someone had left either a collection of books, instruments, or any form of collection, specifically with the idea that the collection would be available to the people who were being trained in or interested in that subject? I take as an example a distinguished surgeon in Newcastle who had built up what I believe was one of the finest collections of surgical books in the world. He left this collection, or gave it, to the University Library in Newcastle. He gave it on the clear understanding that this collection was kept together as one collection, obviously to be used for the benefit of those people who were interested in surgery—in other words, students and so on. Surely, if one were, for some reason or another, to charge, or to deny access to, those people who ought to benefit from this gift, they would be the beneficiaries who could claim that their rights had been interfered with. Am I not right?
6.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: In the scheme of charging we have done exactly what the noble Lord wants. Anyone who can show that he is a student of the particular collection of books will not be charged. An obvious case is the Art Library at the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is a very fine art library, and one would not be able to have access to that Art Library unless one went through the Museum. We have already said, for the exact reason which the noble Lord referred to—because we are certain this is right for purely educational purposes of
652
that kind, for pursuing a particular interest—that a man should not be charged, and it is already one of the exemptions.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: And would this apply also if, say, a set of instruments had been left for exhibition in a museum, or if a particular set of paintings had been left for exhibition in a gallery, and these had been specially brought together with the idea that they were an educational set?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I wonder whether the noble Lord realises what he is trying to encourage and how a bequest of that kind can be an absolute disaster in a library and a bane to a librarian. A good collection of medical books or any other books is one entity, and if a small part of that is left by somebody with instructions that all the books are kept together, the whole library, from the point of view of the man who wants to go and browse there, can well be ruined in this regard, because books will be separated into this one collection when they ought to be cheek by jowl with others of the same nature in another part of the library. If in fact this Amendment is going to try to perpetuate a disastrous bequest of that kind, which can do so much harm to a library and so much harm to a museum, I can only say that I am sure that the noble Lord if he went into a library would not wish to see that happen.
LORD STRABOLGI: Of course we have noted carefully what the noble Viscount has said. I must say I was impressed by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, who I may say has given me much useful and helpful advice over the drafting of this Amendment which was quite beyond my powers. The noble Lord pleaded for more compromise. That is really what we need. The noble Viscount asked, "Why should the court have the right to lay down policy?". No one is asking the court to do that. On the other hand, there may be some compromise that could be arrived at. In the case of the Erskine pictures the noble Viscount really cannot do much about these because they are not the property of the National Gallery of Scotland over which he has jurisdiction; they are the property of the University of Edinburgh.

653
The University has absolute right to withdraw them at any time. I have reason to believe that the University might be prepared to allow them to remain there on condition that there was one free day a week, for example, which would not be unacceptable to the National Gallery of Scotland. That is the kind of compromise that could be arrived at, possibly by an independent appeal to the court. I think we shall probably wish to consider this matter between now and Report stage. I am grateful to the Minister for all the trouble he has taken to explain both this Amendment and the previous Amendments, which were very complicated and technical. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Short title]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 23, after ("Galleries") insert ("Admission Charges").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to extend and alter the Title of the Bill to make it more accurate and to describe more closely what it attempts to do. If it is acceptable to your Lordships, the Bill will then become the Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges) Bill. It seems to me that the term of the present Short Title, Museums and Galleries Bill, does not in any way described what this Bill is trying to do, which is to remove impediments to the making of charges and so on. I feel, and have felt for some years, very strongly that Titles of Bills should describe their contents wherever possible. I have the strongest objection to the modern fashion for euphemisms in this field.
We had a useful precedent in connection with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. This started life in the time of the last Government as the Consumer Protection Bill. We had long discussions on this matter during the passage of the so-called Consumer Protection Bill through this House, and mainly due to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, when the Bill came back from the other place, where the Government had refused to alter the Title, they eventually agreed to its alteration. It has been a matter of great congratulation to
654
the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, ever since, because, as he was able to prove, that Bill was not only for the protection of consumers; it was for the protection of manufacturers, traders, advertisers, and so on. Every previous Bill of that kind had always been called a Trade Descriptions Bill and that measure merely followed that tradition. Similarly, I should have thought that in the future, in view of indexing and so on, it will cause great confusion if this Bill is entitled simply the Museums and Galleries Act. Looking through an index one would have no idea what it related to. It might be about anything to do with museums and galleries and works of art. This Amendment is what I hope is a constructive attempt to give the Bill a more accurate Title. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: I am very glad to support this Amendment. There are many aspects of museums and galleries which are much more interesting than merely admission charges. Any student or research worker researching for the legislation affecting museums and galleries would be grateful for the words "Admission Charges" in brackets, because he would then be able to say to himself straight away, "Well, I am not interested in that and I shall not have to look that one up."
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Christmas is coming, and the Government are very glad to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and am particularly glad that the Committee stage is ending on this happy note.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (BUSI NESS COMPENSATION) BILL [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The only interest I have to declare is that I have spent much of my working life in retail distribution, but I should add

655
that the organisations which I served generally owned the properties which they occupied; they seldom took leases, and indeed they let the properties which were surplus to their requirements. They were therefore landlords rather than tenants, and it was when acting for the landlord that I became aware of the problems of the tenant. I would also say that I hold no office in any organisation which would benefit from this Bill, nor have I any financial interest which would be improved by the Bill.
For the benefit of noble Lords who may not have had an opportunity of studying the Bill, I would explain that it refers to business and professional tenancies rather than to residential tenancies. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1944, Section 30, there are laid down seven grounds upon which a landlord can oppose the renewal of a tenancy. Section 37 states that in three cases, and in three cases only, there shall be a right to compensation, and it specifies the compensation. I would like to deal with these three cases and with the compensation. The first case is where the property has been let in parts and the landlord has opposed a renewal of any of the tenancies on the grounds that he can let the property as a whole at a substantially increased rent. I would point out that the word "substantially" is not mine; it is the word in the Statute. Therefore we can assume that in that case the landlord will have substantially increased income from the property as a result of the termination of the tenancies.
The second case is where the landlord opposes the renewal of a tenancy because he wishes to redevelop the properties. In that case he is obviously going to make better use of the site with a view to getting an increased income from the property. The third case is where the landlord opposes the renewal of a tenancy because he wishes to occupy the property himself. In that case he must have been the landlord for at least five years. But it will be obvious to everybody that this is a particularly dangerous proposition because it means that a competitor can see that a useful business is being carried on in a certain place; he can, without the knowledge of the tenant, negotiate the purchase of the property and then, after he has been the landlord for five
656
years, when the lease comes up for renewal he can oppose it and he can take over the business for the meagre compensation that is mentioned in the 1954 Act.
I come now to the compensation. Where the landlord has opposed the tenancy on any of those three grounds the compensation is twice the rateable value if the tenancy has existed for 14 years or more. In all other cases it is only the rateable value. To make matters worse, we live in the post-war period in an inflationary economy, and the rateable value is pretty well always out of date. It takes about two years to prepare a valuation list, and that work is commenced on returns which have already been made; so the valuation list is generally two years out of date when it is introduced. If, as at the present time, we have a valuation every 10 years, then the least the valuation list is out of date is two years, the maximum is 12 years, and the average is seven years. If, as I understand is probable, we go back to the quinquennial valuation, then the valuation list is two years out of date when it is introduced, at the end of the five years it is seven years out of date and on the average it is four and a half years out of date. In an inflationary economy that can drastically reduce the compensation which the tenant receives. It has been my experience that on the average the rateable value is equal to about five or six weeks' profit in a business which is—and I would put it no higher than this—satisfactorily managed. If that be so, then the maximum compensation of twice the rateable value is less than three months' profit. The principal purpose of this Bill is to increase that to six months.
Let us look now at the losses which the tenant has to bear if his tenancy is terminated. There three kinds of losses that he has to bear: first the loss occasioned by disturbance. He has to move his stock to a new place, if he can find one; he has to dismantle his fittings, transport them and reinstall them in the new place, and in the meantime he is probably not able to carry on his business. Therefore under this heading alone he could have a loss which could be hundreds of pounds. The second loss which the tenant has to face is the loss of the future benefit of the money that

657
he has had to invest in the property. It has always been the practice to expect the retailer to put in the shop front, but in recent times he has usually been expected to do more. For example, in new developments the trader often rents only a shell. He is expected to put in not only the shop front but also to give the floor, the walls and the ceiling their finishes. Sometimes the electricity, water and gas arc merely brought to the premises and the tenant has to do his own plumbing and his own wiring. Therefore he can have a substantial amount invested in the property. The law takes the view that if he is obliged by the lease to do this he will presumably have a lower rent, and Section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 provides that where he has these obligations as part of the lease he cannot claim that they are improvements. He can get no compensation because they are improvements, but if his tenancy is terminated he loses the future benefit of this expenditure. Furthermore, if he is fortunate in being able to find a suitable place to which he can go he may then have to bear the whole of this expenditure over again to make the premises suitable for his occupation.
The third kind of loss which the tenant has to bear is the loss of goodwill. If a tenant, by giving satisfactory service, has attracted trade and built up a business he has goodwill as a market value, and if his tenancy is terminated he loses that goodwill, either in whole or in part. The market value of goodwill varies from one to three years of annual profit. A typical amount received for the sale of goodwill on the open market is 18 months' profit, whereas the maximum compensation at present is, I estimate, something less than three months' profit. Generally, one of two things happens. When the tenancy is terminated the trader is forced to retire prematurely, and in that case he loses the whole value of the goodwill that he could get on the open market, because the tenancy has been terminated. Alternatively, if he is fortunate in getting another place which suits him and where he can carry on his business he will lose some of his goodwill because of the relocation. He may keep some of his trade, but to a very large extent he will have to start again to build up his trade in the new location.
658
There are many cases of hardship as a result of the 1954 Act. I will cite just two quite recent cases. The first concerned a business established in 1948 on a 21 year lease, so that the tenancy expired in 1969. The average profits of the business in the three years up to 1969 were just over£3,000 a year. The landlord opposed a renewal of the lease on the ground that he wanted to redevelop. The rateable value was£322. Tile maximum compensation paid was twice that amount, in other words£641, for a business which on the open market would have been worth£4,000. In that particular case, although the tenant has had to vacate the property for redevelopment, for more than two years the property has been lying undeveloped, much the same as it was when the tenant left it, except that it has been let to a greengrocer, presumably temporarily.
I give as another example the case of a tenant occupying premises used for footwear sales. He has occupied the property for 19 years. His average profit in the last three years is£2,555 per year. His landlord is the outfitter next door. The outfitter has introduced footwear, and he has given notice that he will require the property next door for his own use when the lease expires in March, 1972. Obviously, he intends to carry on his newly created footwear business there. He is therefore able to take over the business next door, which has a profit of£2,555 a year, for compensation of twice the rateable value, which is only£876 in compensation. Those are two of many kinds of cases of hardship that can be quoted, and it is quite clear that something ought to be done if we are to avoid continuing injustice against the professional and business tenant. This Bill proposes that the injustice should be, at least in part, removed.
Clause 1(2)(a) of the Bill provides that where the tenancy has been terminated and the tenant has been in occupation for fourteen years or more he shall get not twice but four times the rateable value. I would estimate that to be equal to about six months' profits as against a market value of goodwill alone of eighteen months' profit. Paragraph (b) of the same subsection provides that where a tenant has been in occupation for

659
seven to fourteen years he shall get three times the rateable value; and paragraph (c) provides that where he has been in occupation for less than seven years he shall get twice the rateable value. Subsection (3) is merely a repetition of the present law. It is necessary because the Bill seeks to reconstruct one of the sections of the 1954 Act which provides that if a tenant succeeds to a business he shall be regarded as having occupied the premises during the whole of the period in which his predecessor has carried on the business on the premises. That is the present law and it is intended that that should continue.
By Clause 2 the provisions of the Bill shall not apply to cases where the landlord has given notice under the present law before this Bill comes into force. Clause 3 is purely formal.
In conclusion, I would thank my own Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick; the Government Chief Whip. the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for consultations and the facilities which they have given me to introduce this Bill which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jacques.)
6.27 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I should like to commend the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill for having brought forward a matter of very serious complaint from the point of view of the tenants of business and professional premises. This kind of difficulty is very well known to those of us who practise in the law, and the particularly serious results that flow from the law as it stands at present to the tenant who is occupying premises of this nature can in very many instances bring great distress to him and to his family. The position is absurd. A man has built up a business over a number of years, and he is then placed in a situation where he can be turned out; and when he is turned out of his premises the amount paid to him by way of compensation is quite risible. To imagine that twice the rateable value on premises can possibly compensate a man who has been carrying on business and building up goodwill for forty years is
660
just out of the question; if anybody examines the situation objectively he can come to only one conclusion—that it is just a pittance handed out to someone who has spent a fair portion of his life in developing his business or his profession.
Of course this applies to professional people as well, because if they are turned out of the place in which they are actually in practice there is considerable difficulty, particularly to-day, in getting alternative premises at anything like the rentals they had before. But, apart altogether from that, in most cases the actual office which the professional man is using has to move to another area. Obviously the removal itself creates a considerable amount of expense, and there is also involved the difficulty of clients and others knowing where the new practice is to be. In the circumstances, I would go rather further in the provisions of this Bill. Certainly I think they are very reasonable indeed as they stand.
Your Lordships will know that there is a tendency to-day (and there has been for some years) to regard dispossession of tenants of dwelling houses, for example, as something which causes grave distress, and therefore to contemplate the removal of the possibility of people being turned out. I do not think that anything like the same attention has been drawn to business premises, and nothing like the same consideration has been given to a man in respect of his loss of livelihood.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I think that we should give a Second Reading to this Bill, but perhaps the noble Lord who introduced the Bill will reconsider the amounts that he is suggesting and will increase them. I hope that we shall not have anyone opposing the Bill. I have very much pleasure indeed in supporting this Bill.
6.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, this being a Private Member's Bill my duty is to advise the House rather than to put the Government Whips on, and that I shall try to do as dispassionately as I can. I am afraid that I have to make a slightly dull speech, because it is a highly technical and difficult subject. Indeed, the purport

661
of what I want to say is that it is far more technical and far more difficult than either of the two speakers who have so far spoken have given your Lordships to understand. Therefore, it must be for me to provide a little more background information than the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has given in his admirably concise speech.
I should like to assure the House that in my office we have been particularly anxious to understand the implications of the Bill, and we have studied it in some depth with other Government Departments. Since I have been Lord Chancellor I have been approached by several bodies concerned with business compensation, and I can assure the House that I have not reached the conclusions that I have either lightly or frivolously. None the less, I must put it before the House that there is certainly one problem to be seriously considered, and it may be that there are two. Therefore I can wholeheartedly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on having raised a debate on the subject, although I must point out that the Bill will not solve either of these real difficulties, and cannot be made to solve them. So I shall have to advise the House against the Bill.
I begin by making clear the area which we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, began by saying, as is correct, that we are not talking about residential accommodation at all. We are not talking about people's homes; we are talking about business premises. That means of course that we are talking about a very wide range of properties indeed. We are talking about factories, however large; about commercial offices, headquarters of companies; professional chambers; surgeries and consulting rooms; solicitors' offices; club premises, and a whole lot of other widely differing things. I cannot but point out—because I think it has coloured his whole approach to the matter—that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has virtually confined his examples and his arguments to retail distribution points, which is only one of the very large number and range of premises concerned. Although the noble Lord, Lord Janner, spoke about professional offices in relation to his profession as a solicitor—I will say a word or two about that in a moment—I do not agree that the
662
same considerations apply to them. I must point out to the House that the only profession whose technical press has commented on this Bill, that I am aware of, is the Solicitors Journal, which has come out strongly against the view propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and I shall explain why in a moment.
In order to enable me to do this, I must give the House a short history of the subject. Until 1927, as between landlord and tenant, the tenant's rights were governed largely by contract. That is to say, he got what the lease gave him, and nothing more. In some ways this was a hardship, as I shall go on to point out; sometimes, however, especially on a long lease, a business tenant ought to be expected to write off the value of the lease as time went on in the course of the ordinary processes of accountancy, which is what he did. It was in fact my father, when he was Attorney General in 1927, who first gave the tenant the right to a new lease or compensation. This is a fact of which, I may say in passing, my father was always—and I think quite justly—proud for the rest of his life. Until 1954—not 1934, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said by a slip of the tongue—the actual basis of the compensation under my father's Bill was based upon what was called "adherent goodwill". This was a highly technical conception that, if the landlord took over premises of which the tenant had increased the value by virtue of the goodwill which adhered to the premises, he ought to pay for that element. The profession of the law in those days, and right up to 1954, had great sport in dividing goodwill of business premises into what they called "dog goodwill", which attached to the owner of the business wherever he went—as for instance when a barrister might move his chambers from Lincoln's Inn to Middle Temple—the "cat goodwill", which attached to the premises, and the "rat goodwill" which just disappeared anyway. However, those refinements were not in the Act, which spoke of "adherent goodwill".
In those days the tenant was entitled either to compensation for adherent goodwill or to a new lease on new terms. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that there was no inherent right—as one phrase in his noble friend's speech

663
would tend to indicate—in relation to business premises that the new lease would be at the same rental, or anything like it; it would take account of current market values. This system was found to be unworkable in practice. The result was that in 1950 the Jenkins Committee reported. It reported in substance on two matters which are relevant to this discussion. In the first place over the great range of tenancies, in almost every case where there was a reasonably good tenant —and of course the great majority of tenants are reasonably good—the tenant should get a new lease and could demand a new lease from his landlord without the landlord having an option to give him compensation, unless there was of course equivalent alternative accommodation available. But in one class of case the Jenkins Committee recommended that the landlord should have the opportunity of forcing compensation on his tenant instead of a new lease. The Jenkins Committee then split and said, as to one part, that the tenant should get, as hitherto, roughly speaking, what the landlord gained by way of adherent goodwill in taking the premises over; and, as to another part—the minority—that the landlord should have to pay what the tenant had lost under the various heads by way of disturbance.
When the Government of that day and Parliament came to consider the Jenkins Committee's Report, although in the main they accepted its conclusions, they came to the conclusion that both the suggestions of the minority and of the majority were, in practice, wholly unworkable. Instead of that, the Government of the day, by that time represented by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (as he then was), as Home Secretary and Lord Simonds as Lord Chancellor, proposed what might be called a bed of Procrustes—a purely arbitrary system of compensation. The compensation which they provided for that class of case, to which I shall come in a moment and which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques has adequately summarised, was based on one year's rateable value for under 14 years' continuous occupation, and twice the rateable value for over 14 years' occupation. It did not pretend to be compensation, in the full sense of the word, for what the tenant
664
was losing; it did not have anything to do with what the landlord was gaining. It was put, I think, by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe; but the Ministers in both Houses respectively expressed, in different language, what was intended: that the tenant should have something towards what he lost by disturbance, not necessarily the whole amount: it might be more; it might he exactly the same amount, or it might be less. He was given an arbitrary sum, because Parliament and the Government of the day found the problems of working out what he ought to get in these circumstances absolutely insoluble. It is fair to say that every Minister in both Houses at that time challenged anybody to think of a better plan, but in fact nobody did. Nobody even suggested one.
Pausing there for a moment to view the law as it is now, I would point out that there are, broadly speaking, three cases. First of all, when a business tenancy comes to an end, if the tenant has been a bad tenant—that is to say, if he does not pay his rent or breaks his covenant—he gets nothing by way of compensation and he is not entitled to a new lease; secondly, if he has been a reasonably good tenant—and, as I said, most tenants are—then in the ordinary case he is entitled to a new lease but not to compensation, and he has to pay the rent in the new market conditions based on what the premises are worth. In the three cases to which this Bill applies—Section 37 cases—the landlord may pay compensation and the tenant is not entitled to a new lease. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, reminded us, those three cases are: first, where the premises are let in parts, and the landlord could recover a better rent if they were let as a whole; secondly, where the landlord wants the premises for his own occupation; and, thirdly, where he wants them for redevelopment. Successive Governments have justified this range of compensation in the last case, because they have said that it is just that, as a matter of public economic policy, redevelopment should be encouraged. Those are the three situations at the moment.
At this stage, one has to concede that a new factor has entered into the case. In principle, the rateable value represents one year's rack rent of the premises: that is the way it is ascertained. Some

665
people complain of the accuracy, or want of it, with which the rate system ascertains it, but in principle it is the rack rent of the premises for a year. It is on that basis that the actual poundage of the rate for which the assessment is primarily made is calculated in the first place. Unfortunately, in 1968, for reasons that I need not go into, the then Labour Government postponed the rateable reassessment to 1973. It was a decision which may or may not have been justified at the time. It had nothing whatever to do with the compensation recoverable under the Landlord and Tenant Act. It was a decision which was bitterly attacked by the Conservative Opposition at the time—but we need not resurrect old spectres of past controversies. These are historical facts which we can record without passion.
A side effect, though doubtless an undesired, unplanned and uncovenanted side effect, of postponing the revaluation from 1968 to 1973—the January after this coming one—was of course that the compensation payable under Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 became manifestly smaller than the framers of the Act had intended. All one can say about that is that in 1973 the balance will be readjusted. Presumably, it will then be exactly what the framers of the 1954 Act intended it to be, because at that time, from a year onwards, the rateable values will come back to what they were designed to be, instead of being ten years out of date. Of course this Bill is rather optimistically phrased, as you see if you look at its terms, to start on August 1, 1972. Therefore, it will not be much good, even if it keeps up to date, to remedy what is admittedly a defect of the present situation. It is therefore virtually useless for that purpose. If the Bill had been introduced in 1968, and had been expressed to be temporary until a new and up-to-date rateable revaluation could be introduced, I think I might very well have supported the principle behind it, because it would have done another kind of rough justice to remedy that admitted defect of the status quo. But for that purpose now, almost at the beginning of 1972, I should have said it was virtually useless.
On the other hand, it is impossible to deal with the radical difficulties of an arbitrary sum by way of compensation
666
unless you go back to the Jenkins Committee and assess compensation on some other basis that bears some genuine relationship either to the landlord's alleged gain or to the tenant's loss; and that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, does not propose to do. In fact nobody, I think, would seriously wish to do it because the difficulties are insuperable. Instead of that, his broad principle is to take the number you first thought of and double it, which is just as arbitrary and as wholly devoid of any scientific justification as the original arbitrary sum; indeed, it would lead to a very great number of anomalies the other way. The trouble is that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has, I think, allowed his interest and experience in retail distribution to colour his whole view of the problem, which really has to do with a much wider range of premises than can be explained.
Take, for instance, my Lords, the case of a large factory with the whole value of the lease written off over, let us say, occupation for fifty years, with the tenant proceeding to acquire other premises, perhaps in a development area outside the original place. The goodwill is not attached to the factory. No doubt the tenant has costs of disturbance when his lease comes to an end, but he has already written them off in his accounts. He has not suffered any injustice, nor does the landlord gain anything, except the site value of the land if he wishes to redevelop it, as he very likely would be well advised to do; and he does not gain anything from the manufacture of whatever it may have been in the previous fifty years. If you take club premises, the same kind of argument can be applied. Or, if you take my professional chambers in the Temple, if I had had to move from Inner Temple and had found myself chambers in Lincoln's Inn I do not suppose I should have lost anything by way of goodwill; nor, so far as I know, would my landlord have gained anything. The fact is that the problem is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has appreciated; and to meet the factual loss by simply doubling the existing compensation or, for the intermediate class which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has created, trebling it, is not really a scientific way to approach this subject at all.

667
Over a wide range of the premises to which the principal Act applies it would hopelessly over-compensate a number of otherwise undeserving tenants.
In support of his contention that the present Bill was required, the noble Lord introduced a certain number of specific arguments which have nothing to do with the revaluation in 1973. The first of these was the contention that valuation lists are intrinsically out of date because they take two years to prepare. There is an element of truth in that, of course, but the fact is that in 1954, when the Act was passed, the rating and valuation list was much more out of date than that. My recollection is that it was twenty years out of date. Therefore that was something which everybody had in mind in 1954, when the Act was passed. As a matter of fact, for a large number of years until the postponement of 1968 I personally agree with the Solicitors Journal that there had been remarkably little complaint about the working of the Act. It was an arbitrary figure.
No doubt some people were overcompensated and other people under-compensated, but it was rough justice of a kind which seemed to meet with a wide range of genuine public support; and nobody had suggested anything different until quite recently. So far as we in my office have been able to consult various interests, which I do not think has been done by the sponsors of this Bill, obviously the retail outlets would welcome the principle; equally, I suppose that, on the whole, those whose business it is to let business premises would not. Some surveyors, I know, are opposed to the Bill; and as to the solicitors, who have not yet been consulted, I do not know, although I do know that the Solicitors Journal condemns it. It is difficult to see, therefore, that one can speak with confidence in its favour if one looks at the whole range of premises affected.
One must remember that even the cases to which the noble Lord has referred—and I accept that these were based on obsolete rateable values which will be put right in 1973, one hopes and believes—do not really carry him the whole way, even on the assumption that one confines one's attention to the shops. The fact is that if the landlord
668
genuinely wants to redevelop he does not gain anything whatever by the goodwill which the tenant may claim to have put into the premises; and the tenant, if he continues his business somewhere in the near locality, will not lose anything like the goodwill of his practice, if he be a professional man, or, if he be a shopkeeper, of his customers, because they will, at any rate largely, go to the new place. As regards the investment over a long lease, this ought to have been written off in the ordinary course of accountancy; and I do not think that that is an adequate example to justify the Bill. So far as one can judge, the future benefit of the investment is lost only if it has not been written off, and the goodwill, as I say, may vary infinitely from nothing to something which may be quite substantial. It will depend upon whether the tenant is able to get premises elsewhere and how close they are to the original location.
The theory that the trader may have to retire prematurely is something for which, I think, no legislation can reasonably be expected to cater. Certainly the Act of 1954 does not cater for it, and certainly the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will not cater for it. It is of course the case—and I think it is fair to say this—that if the landlord wants the premises for his own occupation and then proceeds to carry on a business of identically the same kind, he will get something which in ordinary morals one would probably call unjust enrichment; but you will not cater for that case effectively by simply taking an arbitrary figure and multiplying it by two and getting a result. There may be a case, in such instances, either for a new lease or for compensation based upon actual loss or actual gain. But that is a very unusual case. The usual case when a landlord redevelops premises is that he redevelops them into something quite different. It he re-lets as a whole, he always does; and if he occupies them himself lie usually wants the premises for something else and not for the original business.
What, then, should we do? I do not myself think that there is a sufficient case for setting up a new Commission to see whether they can succeed where the Jenkins Committee failed, in substituting something other than an arbitrary figure for compensation. I do not think the

669
noble Lord has made out his case in full for doubling the present rate of computation if you keep the arbitrary figure. What I suggest would be the sensible thing to do is to wait until 1973 and then see how the arbitrary figure works under the new valuation. To do it now, before we have any experience of the 1973 valuation, is, I think, almost certainly to court disaster. I would just make this comment by way of general criticism. If you are going to reform anything so complicated as the law of landlord and tenant you will have to undertake some wider series of consultations and investigations and consider them over the whole range of businesses affected rather more deeply and rather more widely than has been done by the sponsors of the Bill.
Having said that, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for having raised this subject. It has been to some extent a matter of concern to me since I became Lord Chancellor to find a number of instances where, owing to the obsolete nature of the valuation lists, compensation has been manifestly much less than Parliament intended, and but for the fact of the impending revaluation I would suggest an interim measure to deal with it. I think the House ought therefore to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for having raised the subject. But having said what I have, I cannot advise the House to give the Bill a passage—and I am quite sure that if it should go to the other place it has in fact no chance of reaching the Statute Book this Session. Having said that, I have given the House the best and the most objective advice that I can.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I was interested in the reference to the Solicitors Journal. Before the Bill was drafted I consulted a number of solicitors who act for both landlord and tenant. They all said two things. They said that this compensation is totally inadequate and ought to be increased; and they said, "For Heaven's sake!, keep to some kind of formula similar to the present; otherwise it will be unworkable." I think that the difference between the practising solicitors and the Solicitors Journal is clear. It is very likely that the Solicitors Journal is written by somebody who is mostly a journalist and is not in touch
670
with practising solicitors. I think that consulting with practising solicitors is more important than reading the Solicitors Journal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that on principle if one was going to consult with the solicitors' profession one should consult the Law Society and the British Legal Association?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I must agree with that. I accept that the choice is between the rough justice of the kind we get now or something which according to past experience has appeared to be unworkable. I accept the rough justice; but what I am saying is that we have had the formula since 1954; we have had it not only when the valuation list has been out of date but when a new valuation list has been introduced and we have found it to be inadequate. I think that the present compensation is inadequate—not temporarily so until 1973, but that it has been shown to be inadequate since 1954, regardless of the valuation list being out of date. I therefore think that there should be some improvement. What I am asking the House to do is to approve the Bill in principle, for that is all that a Second Reading does. If, after that, your Lordships want to restrict the provisions of the Bill to retailers or to retailers plus somebody else, then all right; but let us at least approve it in principle, so that it can be further examined.
Furthermore, after it is approved in principle, if at a later stage it is thought that by doubling the compensation I have gone too far, then there is a step in between that could be taken. I would point out that it was not I who thought of a number; it was the people who prepared the 1954 Act who thought of a number when they put the compensation at twice the rateable value. I have merely accepted the kind of thing which was accepted by Parliament, and all that I have done is to increase the multiplier. But there is something between two and three that can be considered if necessary. I hope that sufficient has been said to show that the compensation since 1954 (especially as far as the retailers are concerned) has been proved to be inadequate and that the matter requires further consideration. I

671
hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, which is merely an approval in principle.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on a Motion for advancing a Bill by a stage or going into Committee, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order No. 51, which provides that no proposal to reject a Bill shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such objection, I declare the Motion agreed to.
Resolved in the affirmative Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1971
7.12 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations 1971 laid before the House on November 23, be approved The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Regulations are quite short and, I would suggest, entirely uncontroversial. Their main effect is to require the British Steel Corporation to pay compensation to any person listed ill the 1968 Regulations who suffers loss or dissolution of emoluments or pension rights as the result of the making of a vesting or dissolution Order under Section 8 of the Iron and Steel Act 1969. This part of the Regulations will take effect retrospectively from March 29, 1970,
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordship divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Bacon, Bs.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Peddie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Aldwvn, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Just, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas, L.

which is the date when the vesting Order came into operation. As the Act requires, the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions have been consulted in the preparation of these Regulations. I trust that this short explanation will enable your Lordships to approve the Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations 1971 laid before the House on November 23, be approved—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ROAD LAYOUT AND VISIBILITY
  ROAD LAYOUT AND VISIBILITY
  REPAIRS NOTICES AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS
  REPAIRS NOTICES AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS