Sitting of 9 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
  11.4 a.m.
  The Deputy Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, before I call the first Amendment, selected for debate, I were to say that after careful consideration of the Bill it has been decided to include Amendment No. 21 in the list of Amendments selected for debate.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I am most grateful, Miss Harvie Anderson.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Miss Harvie Anderson, we are grateful for what you have just announced, but may I seek your advice about the non-selection of at least two of the Amendments on the Notice Paper? Would it be in order to do that now?
  The Deputy Chairman: Yes.
  Mr. Freeson: I refer to Amendment No. 3 and new Clause 2. I have been in close consultation with the Public Bill Office on these Amendments. I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail now, but I am clear in my mind—and I think there is some doubt, if I may put it that way, in the Public Bill Office about it—that it would be correct to say that Amendment No. 3 is within the terms of the Money Resolution, and the same
  1688
  comment applies to new Clause 2. Whatever the Committee may decide to do in respect of either of these Amendments, I would argue that the new Clause is within the terms of the Money Resolution if we are to accept that Amendment No. 17 is within its terms.
  I believe that further consideration is being given to this matter, and before pursuing it any further I should like to ask for your advice on how you think it would be best to deal with these issues, which are substantially within the general debate on the Bill.
  The Deputy Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter. I am aware of the consultations which the hon. Gentleman has had, and of the advice which he has sought elsewhere. It is very difficult to change the selection in respect of Amendment No. 3 and I do not feel able to do so.
  As regards new Clause 2, if the hon. Member agrees, I should be happy to consider the matter at a later stage, in he hope that we might come to some reconciliation of view.
  Mr. Freeson: I am obliged. May I pursue with you the point regarding Amendment No. 3, which has not been selected? The Money Resolution contains the phrase in the penultimate line of the first paragraph:
  "… expenditure in such local government areas completed or incurred within the period of two years beginning with 23rd June, 1971."
  "Incurred" does not necessarily mean actual expenditure on works completed. There must be a reason for the either-or phraseology. I would submit that the Amendment which would substitute "approved" for "completed" is covered by the reference to expenditure "incurred".
  The Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Member will realise from what I have already said about the new Clause that I should very much like to help him, but I cannot do so in the case of Amendment No. 3. I am very sorry, but I cannot alter the selection.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to persist in this matter, Miss Harvie Anderson, but we raised on the Money Resolution a specific question

  1689
  which we realise that the Minister cannot answer. But we wanted his encouragement that he was not seeking to interpret the Money Resolution as definitely debarring a debate on the word "approved".
  This is not a party point. This suggestion was made on both sides of the House—that we should debate at a later stage the insertion of "approved" instead of "completed". That was specifically acknowledged by the Under-Secretary when he said that it was a matter for the Chair and that, if it were allowed, it would be discussed.
  Is it then the case that we can discuss this on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? Are we debarred on that question from debating this alternative wording, and is the argument for that that the Money Resolution is drawn so tightly? If it is, there has been some very sharp practice here by the Government.
  We are grateful to you for your decision about new Clause 2. Is it a fact that, since the Government have made a mistake and sought to amend Clause 2, and you are willing to call that Amendment, we in turn on Report can seek to make further Amendments on the same matter since we were debarred from seeking to do so at this stage?
  The Deputy Chairman: It would not be for me to comment at this stage on the latter point, as the hon. Member will appreciate. As for the previous point, it is well known that the Money Resolution is very tightly drawn, so the Chair is in this difficulty. While I leaned over backwards to try to help the hon. Member, and while I have no wish to sever an old friendship, I cannot alter the decision in the case of Amendment No. 3. That is my decision.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Further to that point of order. May I ask you, Miss Harvie Anderson, to take into account on Amendment No. 3 that, had the local government associations been consulted about the Bill by the Government, their attention would have been drawn to the fact that the word "approved" was needed instead of "completed"? Having regard to the fact that the Government have failed to consult——
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member will realise that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Freeson: May I strengthen a fairly new friendship? I do not want to labour the point, Miss Harvie Anderson, although we have strong feelings about the matter. Would it be acceptable if a manuscript Amendment within the terms of the Money Resolution were handed to you to meet the same point which we are after here?
  The Deputy Chairman: I would certainly look at any manuscript Amendment which was handed to me. I do not know whether the hon. Member means now or on Report. Either way, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.
  Mr. Freeson: I am obliged; we will proceed along those lines.

Clause 1

  HOUSING IMPROVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND INTERMEDIATE AREAS
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'If'.
  The Deputy Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'area' to 'this' in line 20.
  Mr. Freeson: This is a simple but important point. The Bill gives the Minister a discretionary power as to whether areas classified as development or intermediate areas within the time span of the Bill should benefit from these improved grants. We do not suggest that the Bill would be deliberately prevented from applying where it was needed, but we wonder why it should be necessary, if the intention is to help, to qualify intentions over development and intermediate areas established within the two-year period.
  The Bill is concerned with a very short period. I realise that a number of local authorities' areas are certain to be classified as intermediate. I do not know of any application at the moment for development reclassification, but some areas are seeking intermediate status.

  1691
  Edinburgh, for example, may wish to pursue its pressures to be included in the Scottish development area. If the Government were to accede to such requests, which would be considered by Departments other than the Department of the Environment, it seems illogical even to consider excluding from the benefits of the Bill other areas if they were so classified.
  This is why we are seeking to establish a virtually automatic right for any area, like Edinburgh and other areas—Manchester was mentioned on Second Reading—which may seek development or intermediate status to benefit from the improved grant.
  The point is particularly valid when one bears in mind those areas which have been putting forward their case to the Government. Manchester has made representations recently by way of personal deputation. I do not know whether Edinburgh has made any recent representations, but there has been some in the past. Both Manchester and Edinburgh have major problems of housing and obsolescence. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) told us on Second Reading about the detailed position in Manchester. We did not hear about Edinburgh, but those of us who are concerned about housing are aware that there are bad housing conditions and serious problems of obsolescence there.
  The same will apply to other areas which may become prospective candidates as development and intermediate areas. So it seems logical to have an automatic right of benefit, should the Government, on broader grounds, consider the extention of development and intermediate status. These are the broad reasons for these two Amendments and I hope that, in the spirit of wanting to make the Bill effective, the Government will accept our purpose.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Considerable distress has been expressed about the Government not consulting the local government associations on this matter. The Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice-president, has asked me to voice its regret that the Government chose to ignore its help and advice in pursuing the Bill, the aims and
  1692
  objectives of which are broadly acceptable to most people.
  Distress has also been expressed at the failure of the Government to understand that precisely the same problem of housing decay exists in areas other than the two which are covered by the Bill. It seems illogical for the Government to have drawn the line in the way the Measure discriminates between the two areas mentioned in the Bill and other areas which are suffering from the same problem. Why have the Government chosen to restrict these provisions to development and intermediate areas?
  Hon. Members, who like myself, represent London constituencies, will agree that the help which the Bill will provide should be available to London, which every Government since the war, and before, have accepted is an area of great housing stress and should be given the maximum help.
  The Secretary of State visited the Islington part of my constituency in May, before the local government elections, and spoke of the "dynamic" work that the Government intended to do to solve the housing problem. London is undoubtedly one of the hardest hit areas from the housing stress point of view. I have no doubt that the areas covered by the Bill are under stress, but it is totally illogical to exclude London.
  I appreciate that the Government must allocate their resources on a priority basis and that only a limited sum is available. However, the Amendment merely seeks to give the Minister discretion to extend the help which is available under the Bill to areas outside the two mentioned, so enabling him to use that discretion in determining whether a priority situation exists. Acceptance of our proposal would not cost the right hon. Gentleman anything. It would merely give him an additional discretionary power which he could find extremely useful in future.
  Mr. Geoffrey Stewart-Smith: I entirely support what the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) said about the inclusion of London in the Bill. It seems unjust that the £50 million that will be available should be distributed in a geographically discriminatory way and not on a basis of need.

  1693
  I have been repeatedly thwarted and frustrated in my attempts to solve this problem in my constituency, where we have identified areas of need. Such areas have been identified throughout London but, as in my constituency, we cannot get the money to enable those with limited means to improve their properties, even when they are extremely anxious to do so.
  Belper town is made up of a lot of old stone buildings which are extremely attractive and should be preserved. I appreciate that the central Government are doing their best to get the necessary money to the people concerned to put these properties into good repair, and in the debate last Friday it was made clear that although grants for this purpose are valuable, the purchasing power of the standard grant is dropping because of inflation.
  Belper Urban District Council has refused to consider the making of discretionary grants. The council regards them as a waste of the ratepayers' money and open to abuse by property owners and landlords. It is not for me at this time to give a verdict on the judgment of the council in this matter, but I feel that its attitude is extremely unhelpful and high-handed.
  The Minister will be aware of this problem. If the Amendment is accepted, the money that will be available under the Bill could be made available outside the intermediate and development areas mentioned in the Measure; and if the money is available, local authorities such as mine could have no possible objection to providing the sort of help that is now badly required.
  There is much talk today of cost effectiveness, but the best return on money spent on housing is that spent on improving old houses. I therefore strongly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) last Friday.
  I hope that after the two-year period has elapsed the Government will introduce a comprehensive housing Bill which will cease to discriminate on geographical grounds and will concentrate on need. I hope that the Minister will give us some cause for comfort on this score.
  Mr. Marcus Upton: I, too, fully share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), for it seems extremely odd that the Government should seek to deny to themselves power to apply to London the funds which the Bill will make available.
  After all, it is in London that housing needs are as great as, if not greater than, in any other part of the country. We are seeking not to restrict but to reinforce, widen and strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State in this matter.
  Nor do I want the Minister to think that the Amendment is limited to the needs of London north of the river. The needs of London south of the Thames are just as great, if not greater. I hope the Government will not resist this sincere attempt to give them more power. They must be aware of the urgent and distressing problem in London. People in housing stress should be given prior consideration wherever they live, and terminology should not come into this matter. In other words, help should be given on a need and not a geographical basis.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I echo what has been said about the need to include London in the Bill. I do not understand why, at a time when London's housing needs are tremendous, this part of the country has been excluded.
  Let us consider the way in which the Clause is drafted and the way in which the Amendment would apply. The provision states:
  "If … a local government area comes wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area, the Secretary of State"
  shall do certain things. The Amendment would delete the word "if" from the beginning of that provision, which would result in the subsection reading:
  "In a case where … a local government area comes wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area … this Act shall apply."
  Is there anything illogical about our suggestion? It seems to be in line with the object of the Government in this part of the Bill. The Amendment is so logical and important that it should be accepted immediately.

  1695
  I say that in addition to what has been said about London. I feel strongly that the Minister is greatly at fault in not trying to help London's crying needs, which are greater than those in any other part of the country.
  11.30 a.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: The conception of development areas and intermediate areas that might have been valid a few years ago is not as valid today. A few years ago Birmingham was a prosperous city, but the amount of employment now existing there makes it very doubtful whether in a short time it may not come within the definition of a grey area or an intermediate area. Among the unemployed in Birmingham there are, for the first time since the war, a very substantial number of building and construction workers.
  Acceptance of the Amendment by the Minister would lead not only to an improvement of the older houses of Birmingham but also to work for Birmingham's unemployed building and construction workers. That being so, I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. A house is a house, whether it is in the North-East, or in Scotland or in Birmingham. The case for preserving the country's assets and improving old houses is as valid in Birmingham or London as it is anywhere else in the country.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I should like to get some clarification about the position in Edinburgh, and then relate the position to other parts of the United Kingdom. In the Second Reading debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, said:
  "The scope of the application of the Bill is the same in Scotland, covering the two year period. … But, since all districts in Scotland had development area or intermediate area status at 23rd June, the Bill will apply throughout Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 819.]
  I take that statement to mean that since Leith, a very ancient burgh but part of the city of Edinburgh, has intermediate status, Edinburgh is included in that status. I should like confirmation of that view.
  If any part of a local government area is a development area or intermediate area the whole of the area qualifies and
  1696
  not just that part. What is a local government area? Is a district council a local government area? In Scotland it certainly is not a rating authority. The rating authorities there are the burghs, the counties and the counties of cities. A local government authority can be a rating authority, and no more. It can also be an authority which is not a rating authority.
  My knowledge of English local government is very unclear at times, but I understand that in England the parishes, though not rating authorities, exist as local government entities. Are they local government areas? Could part of a parish bring within the definition the whole local government unit? If so, what is the local government unit that is brought in? Leith brings in the entire city of Edinburgh, but would a scheduled district council bring in the whole county, with all its small and large burghs?
  I realise that this is not the kind of argument that we should have without the appropriate Minister being present, or the Secretary of State for Scotland as representing local government there, but we need clarification, because if we do not have a precise definition of a local government area in the legislation we shall have many rows.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: The wish on both sides of the Committee is obviously to see the legislation extended to cover as wide an area as possible. The Minister, who has visited many London constituencies, must know that there is a very acute housing problem throughout the inner London boroughs. We ought therefore to do everything we can to provide legislation for the improvement of these properties. The Minister must have read the Greve Report, which tells us of the thousands of homeless families in London. In Wandsworth earlier this year there were over 800 homeless families. The Amendment would provide an opportunity to tackle that problem.
  One hopes that the Minister will try to impress upon authorities that they themselves should engage in the work or encourage responsible housing associations to do so, and so provide an opportunity to help overcome London's housing problems. Hon. Members on both sides know that throughout London there

  1697
  are hundreds of empty properties, many of which have remained empty for months, and even for years. Properly amended, the Bill could give an opportunity to start bringing those properties into habitation, and thus tackle the appalling housing and homelessness problems of London.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): In addressing themselves to these Amendments, hon. Members on both sides have raised substantial points, and it might be more convenient were I to deal with them when we debate the Clause. I propose now just to try to answer the Amendments, and show, as I hope, that there is very little difference between us.
  The effect of the Amendments would be, as the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) said, to make the application of the Bill automatic to areas subsequently designated development areas or intermediate areas rather than do it by Order of the Secretary of State. We considered this view very carefully at the time, but decided, for reasons which I think will probably command the support of the hon. Member, that the Bill contained the better formula.
  Though it may or may not command the approval of the hon. Gentleman, an essential feature of the Bill is that its operation is limited to two years. We have taken the view that the work has to be completed within that time, though the hon. Gentleman would like to use the word "approved" instead of "completed". We believe that if it were a question of approval, false hopes could be raised. If, let us say, in the last few days or weeks of the two-year period some new area was designated a development area or an intermediate area, that could lead to the raising of false hopes, so we thought that, on the whole, it was wiser not to do it in that way.
  I can, however, give complete assurance that it is our intention wherever reasonably practicable to apply the provisions of the Bill to any development or intermediate areas subsequently created and that it would be for practical purposes our intention that the Secretary of State's Order to do so would be made at the same time as the Order conferring development or intermediate
  1698
  status. It will be made in every case where there is reasonable time for advantage to be taken of the higher grant, always allowing for the need for the work to be completed by 23rd June, 1973.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has raised what we regard as a substantial point. The Minister's answer did not clarify the situation. When we discussed this matter last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office—not the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office—made a point about the inclusion of Edinburgh on which we are not clear. This is of more general application in relation to local government boundaries in England and parishes coming within the area of a county council for rating purposes. It would help the Committee and shorten our deliberations if the Minister would clear up this point.
  Mr. Amery: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). I have consulted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office. There is no problem as regards Scotland, because the whole of Scotland is either a development area or an intermediate area and the whole of Edinburgh is an intermediate area. Therefore, the Bill will apply everywhere north of the Border.
  Mr. Weitzman: The Minister has said that it is the Government's intention to apply the provisions of the Bill where
  "a local government area comes wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area".
  Why not say so in the Bill? If that is the intention, why not delete "If" and make the intention perfectly clear?
  Mr. Amery: The intention is perfectly clear. It is only that it is to be done by order of the Secretary of State and not automatically. As I explained earlier, our view is that, if it were automatic, a situation might arise in which in the last few days of the operation of the Bill, when enacted, false hopes could be raised and the provisions of the Bill could be brought into disrepute.
  We would prefer, and we ask the Committee to support this preference, that we should proceed by an Order

  1699
  of the Secretary of State. I am glad to give the assurance that in every case where there seems reasonable time for advantage to be taken of the higher grants an Order will be made by the Secretary of State at the same time as the Order conferring development or intermediate status on the area concerned.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Will the Statutory Instrument have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament?
  Mr. Amery: I will deal with that question in the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
  Mr. Silverman: Is it necessary to go through all this procedure to bring into operation what is already the Government's intention?
  Mr. Amery: On balance, we think it is. We have carefully weighed the two alternatives. We do not want to raise false hopes or bring any of the provisions of the Bill into disrepute and we think that this is the best way of proceeding. There is no procedural requirement: it is an automatic order.
  11.45 a.m.
  Mr. Freeson: The explanation we have received from the Minister is not clear or satisfactory in terms of the Bill as it stands. I have carefully re-read the subsection. My understanding of it is that it contradicts what the Minister has just told us is the only reason for not accepting the Amendments.
  The Minister has said that the reason the automatic provision which we seek to have inserted was not accepted, after close consideration inside the Department, was that it could raise a situation where an area could be declared a development or intermediate area on other broader grounds within the last few days or few weeks of the operation of the Bill, thus raising false hopes. Unless I have badly misread the subsection, my understanding of the wording is that the two-year period for intermediate areas or development areas declared from now on, even within the discretionary procedure laid down, operates from the date of the statutory instrument.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon)The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Freeson: That is how it reads. I will go through the wording carefully so that there can be no misunderstanding. Subsection (2) says that
  "where, after the relevant date"
  which I take to be 23rd June, 1971
  "within the period of two years … a local government area"
  is declared as a development or an intermediate area the Secretary of State for the Environment,
  "by order in a statutory instrument"
  may direct that
  "this Act shall apply to works eligible for financial assistance"
  if they are carried out in that area and if the application for assistance is
  "made on or after the date when the order comes into force"—
  that is, the Order referred to in the fourth line of the subsection, and
  "the works are completed before the expiration of the said period of two years",
  which I take to mean two years from the coming into force of the Order.
  That is what the Bill says. The phrase
  "the said period of two years"
  relates to the two years following the making of the Order by the Secretary of State, if he decides to make it. This means in practice that the Order would run beyond the two years immediately following from 23rd June, 1971, because the starting date for such two-year period will be such date as any subsequent local government areas have been declared as intermediate areas or development areas.
  Therefore, there may well be a run-over of the present two-year period for areas which may be declared as development and intermediate areas at any date from now onwards. If this is so, the reason which the Minister has given cannot arise. If it is not so, the Minister has raised an even more serious point.
  If my understanding of the subsection is incorrect, must we take it that an area which is declared a development or an intermediate area in, say, one year from now would have only one year in which the local residents and the local authority could benefit from the provisions of the Bill when enacted; or that, if an area was declared a development area or an intermediate area 18 months from now, there would be only a six month period in which a local authority and the residents

  1701
  concerned would benefit from the provisions of the Bill when enacted?
  If this is the reality of the Bill, it will make a nonsense for such areas. The benefits of the Bill cannot be operated in six months. It is not a question of a few days or a few weeks before 31st March, 1973. It is a question of what is a reasonable period within which local authorities, residents, builders, and so on, can make applications for work to be done and have the work completed within the two years laid down in the Bill for existing development and intermediate areas.
  If the Minister is correct and my interpretation of the Bill is incorrect, for any areas so declared in the future there will be a nonsense situation. As I read paragraphs (a) and (b), the two-year period runs from the date of the Order made by the Secretary of State.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify these points, because they are very important for any areas which may be declared development or intermediate areas in future.
  Mr. Amery: The "said period of two years" refers to the two-year period covered by subsection (1)(b) at line 15 on page 1. I have to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), therefore, to accept what he regards as the less favourable interpretation, that is, that we are talking about the two years from 23rd June, 1971, and expiring on 23rd June, 1973. It is not our intention that an area subsequently designated, say, next year, as a development or intermediate area should have the two-year run. It is simply that it would benefit from the provisions up to 23rd June, 1973, but not subsequently.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Why does the Bill extend to the end of the financial year 1974? Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that work may be actually finished on 23rd June, 1973, and that is the reason why the payments are allowed within that financial year?
  Has the right hon. Gentleman got it right? Surely, he does not mean that. Does he not mean that work could be carried out within the period of the financial year? It cannot literally be 23rd June, 1973, or, if it be so, the
  1702
  thing is getting a bit absurd. The Bill allows its provisions to run during the financial year up to 31st March. Why cannot it be allowed within that time?
  Mr. Amery: It is perfectly clear and categoric. The provisions run till 23rd June, 1973, but not beyond.
  Mr. Lipton: The Bill offers certain local authorities a two-year period, but, in effect, that two-year period does not mean what it says. During six or eight months of that two-year period, it will be difficult for any local authority to take proper advantage of any of the arrangements made possible by the Bill.
  In effect, therefore, the Government are giving to local authorities 12 or 15 months at the outset, and the last six or nine months of the two-year period will be valueless for many of them.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: The point is well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). The Minister's insistence that work must be completed, not approved, within the two-year period will cause a great deal of confusion and disappointment to many people, irrespective of the area in which they live. In spite of the improvement here proposed in Government grants, it still means that many people will be unable to take advantage of what is offered. They will have to save a considerable sum of money to meet their part of the overall cost of improvement as such, and this may well take them some time. Eighteen months or so of the two-year period may have passed. People then start to obtain estimates and secure the approval of the local authority. This takes a good deal of time. The point was made by hon. Members opposite last week that there are some local authorities which do excellent work in this respect, but there are others which leave a great deal to be desired.
  If the Minister insists on rigidly keeping to his two-year period, what discussions will he have with the local authorities to try to impress upon them that, when approval is sought for improvement grants, the procedure should be speeded up? Some local authorities have a very lackadaisical attitude towards improvement grants.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I must take the argument a little further. One assumes

  1703
  that the Minister really wishes to get improvement work going quickly and he wants general improvement areas to be associated with that improvement work. I believe that that is his intention. But two points then arise. First, an impetus will be given to the amount of improvement work needed to be done immediately. Second, within a general improvement area, the local authority will immediately have to set substantial procedures in train to come within its two-year period.
  The definition of the two-year period by reference to completion of the work makes it almost certain that there will be a flood of work to be done in order to prepare applications. The amount of time available to carry out such improvement work will of necessity be reduced by that factor, and it is a factor which the Minister, though for the best possible reasons, is deliberately creating.
  It seems to the local authority associations that this state of affairs, if he sticks rigidly to his two-year period, will be disadvantageous to the aims which the Minister has in mind. It will be impossible to do it. It is being said—I do not know whether the Minister has any views on this—that he can evaluate virtually exactly how many improvements will be done and how much money he will give to the work because there is such a limited group in a position to be able to carry out the work. This is contrary to the intention embodied in the Bill as one reads it and as one understands what the Minister is attempting to do by it. If he sticks to his point about completion in two years, I do not know how the objective of the Bill can be attained.
  I urge the Minister to bear this in mind. If he sticks to his two-year period related to completion, it will be suggested that he does not really want to do very much and this is really a gimmick. That would be very bad. All of us on both sides are satisfied that everyone must try to do his best to provide help and money to areas of housing stress. It would be disastrous if the Minister were to be accused of producing a Bill which could be described—as it was to me, and I put it in inverted commas—as "piddling". If his Bill were regarded as a political gimmick, it would be a disaster for the people who are really
  1704
  interested in housing, all the local authorities, housing associations, and a wide variety of interested persons trying to do their best. I beg him to consider whether he is, by standing firm to the commitment as he has now put it, going in the opposite direction from what he should be trying to achieve.
  I urge the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter with the local authority associations. They are the bodies upon whom, at the end of the day, he will have to rely to make the achievement of the Bill's objectives possible. I urge him to withdraw his firm stand at this stage, look at the matter again, and bring something better before the House on Report, even if that entails a few days delay. I want him to have the benefit of the advice of the people who really understand the problems created by his definition of the two-year period.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Members for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) and for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) have raised a substantial point, namely, the question whether the two-year period in certain future development areas should extend beyond 23rd June, 1973. In the same way, other hon. Members earlier raised the question whether the Bill should apply to other areas of housing stress not themselves development or intermediate areas. I shall seek to deal with those points in the debate on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
  I ask the Committee to accept as logical that, if we proceed as we are proposing to proceed, on the basis that the Bill applies only until 23rd June, 1973 with reference to development and intermediate areas, the case for the two Amendments does not hold water. I have given an assurance that in all reasonable cases the Secretary of State will make an Order applying the provisions of the Bill to new development or intermediate areas at the same time as the Order is issued creating these new areas. Within the narrow ambit of the Bill, this, I suggest, gives hon. Members opposite the substance of what they seek to obtain.
  Mr. David Weitzman: We are told that the Minister will act reasonably in certain cases, but does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if the work

  1705
  cannot be completed within two years, the intentions of the Bill cannot legally be carried out within the scope envisaged?
  Mr. Amery: I do not think that that is the subject of the two Amendments. I will discuss that broader issue on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I am simply asking the Committee to resist the Amendment because I do not think that it gives anything which our assurances and the Secretary of State's order cannot do.
  12 noon.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate, but I had important business elsewhere.
  I am fascinated by the arguments of Labour hon. Members, but when my right hon. Friend considers the matter—and he knows my view about the two years—will he bear in mind the wider implications, remembering that the Bill is additional to existing legislation? Whilst a powerful argument is made by hon. Members opposite about the short period left to complete the work from a practical point of view, if there is any whisper that an area might become an intermediate or development area there will be the great disadvantage, unless the Bill is fixed in time, that ordinary alterations and improvements will not go ahead. People will say, "Until the two years are up let us not carry out the alterations and improvements, because if we wait long enough we may get an extra subsidy". We must be very careful that we do not stop the ordinary alterations and improvements that we all want to see. I do not think that hon. Members opposite fully took cognisance of that point when arguing on the narrow issue.
  Mr. Freeson: The point made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is very valid in general terms but it is not an argument against the two Amendments, because they seek not to extend the scope in time of the Bill, much as I should like to see that, but to establish an automatic right of any future development and intermediate areas within the time span of the Bill to obtain the benefits of the Bill and not to rely on the discretion of the Minister. I realise that there can be difficulties with regard to designations of such areas within a few days or a few weeks of the
  1706
  expiry of the Bill at the end of the two-year period, but I repeat that there will be difficulties for areas which are declared even six or eight months ahead of the expiry of the Bill. That is why I object to the narrow drawing of the subsection, which the Minister has now clearly explained.
  I urge the Minister to give further thought to the matter, if not here then in another place, because if local authorities are not to have the automatic right when they are declared development or intermediate areas, there will be sharply undue discrimination within the positive discrimination about which we are concerned in the Bill.
  We all support the Bill, whatever the strong arguments which we shall have to pursue later on extending the scope of such positive discrimination to areas of the country which are suffering housing stress. We are all concerned to get the Bill through and to see those areas receiving the benefits arising from it. But there should be no question of any development or intermediate area so designated within the next two years being excluded from the provisions, notwithstanding the general assurances we have had from the Minister.
  As I understand it, his sole argument against the Amendments is that undue expectations could be raised if an area were designated within a few days of the expiry of the Bill. But we all know that before such designations are made there is pretty close consultation between Government Departments, and this will be even more the case under the new structure of Government, with the Department of the Environment. Such designations, should they arise, will not be made without consultations on timing and the nature of the case being considered by Government as a whole with the fullest consultation with the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
  If the Amendments were accepted and an application had been before the Government for an area to be designated a development or intermediate area, and if it was seen that such a declaration within a few days or a week or two of the expiry of the Bill could create serious inconvenience locally and to the Government Departments concerned, it would be a simple matter so to fix the date that the designation was made on the

  1707
  expiry of the Bill, should that be a serious point at issue.
  I do not see the strength of the Minister's point in defence of the discretionary power. If the Government wish to see the Bill operate in intermediate and development areas whenever they may be declared within the time span of the
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  12.15 p.m.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: While the Government are considering whether or not they should resign after that humiliation, and while their Chief Whip, for whom I have great sympathy, is also considering his position, I want to make some few introductory remarks about Clause I before my hon. Friends develop the argument further. I seek clarification on a question which the right hon. Gentleman kindly said he would answer at this stage.
  The Clause refers to a local government area which may be
  "… wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area…".
  Does this take in the whole of the local government area of which the district
  Bill, they can accept our Amendments and meet the single objection they have raised by administrative consultation on the timing of announcements.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 39, Noes 45.

  Division No. 422].

  AYES

  [12.8 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Janner, Greville

  Prescott, John

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Lambie, David

  Silverman, Julius

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stallard, A. W.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Ogden, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Mr William Hamling.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  NOES

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Bray, Ronald

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  James, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Buck, Antony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Channon, Paul

  Kilfedder, James

  Sproat, lain

  Chapman, Sydney

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Tebbit, Norman

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Costain, A. P.

  Moate, Roger

  Waddington, David

  Drayson, G. B.

  Normanton, Tom

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Fowler, Norman

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Green, Alan

  Redmond, Robert

  Mr. Paul Hawkins

  Grieve, Percy

  in question may be a functional part? I recognise that there is a definition in Clause 1 but I am not sure precisely which interpretation it is open to. There are two possible ways of looking at it. Perhaps the Minister's advisers will want to reflect on this while the debate goes on.
  For example, if a district of a local authority is partly in an intermediate area, does this mean that the county council of that area will be responsible? Many county councils organise their housing lists, powers and priorities on a county basis and not on a district basis, although some delegate these functions. Certainly, most county councils in Scotland organise them on a county basis. The operation of discretionary grants or local government grants obviously must be at the centre of local government's own organisation, and if that is in the district concerned, I wonder whether the right hon.

  1709
  Gentleman can be content with Clause 1 as it stands.
  On the last Amendment I was concerned about the Minister's interpretation of the provision in the Act relating to the date by which the work has to be finished. The right hon. Gentleman has now been in office for a year. Has he worked out the time scale for any of the three categories of persons or organisations concerned? We all know that it takes months to build a house but longer than that to plan it. We have now had experience of the 1968 and 1969 Acts for about one functional year. Are any figures available for the carrying out of discretionary improvements and standard works? What time has been taken physically to carry these works out? What is the average estimate for planning and negotiation?
  Sometimes there can be a planning objection. Although this does not often happen, when it does happen it can take a long time. This has happened in spite of all the streamlining which has been carried out in recent planning Acts. There can sometimes be objections in Deans of Guild Courts or in courts set up to arbitrate on matters of sunlight, daylight and other considerations. These matters may result in the improvement of three houses by making them into two, using the third house in the middle for conversion to bathrooms and so on.
  I am not seeking to be difficult but am trying to be helpful to the Minister. He should be able to say that there is a neat period of time in which to enable the object of the Bill to be realised. If he is not sure about the situation, I suggest that he should think about extending the period a little.
  I turn to the point about the use of the word "approved" rather than "completed" in page 2, line 7 of the Bill, which was covered by Amendment No. 11, which has not been selected. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in Committee made the very good point, which was supported by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers'—it is a point which I have heard since from local authorities in Scotland—that work should come within the term "approved" rather than "completed". I feel that the Minister is seeking to draw the matter a little too
  1710
  tightly, and it may be that unintentionally he will defeat the object of the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister will give figures to allay our anxieties. If he does not have these figures, he should say "I want this Clause now, but I am prepared to look at the matter again in another place;" and then when the Bill returns to this House for the consideration of Lords Amendments we can see whether the figures and phasing are right, and so on. I am making these remarks in a constructive mood since we are concerned about the tight schedule which is to be imposed. I hope the Minister will take point.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: We can well understand the Government's dilemma over Clause 1 about where and how work shall be carried out. They have specifically referred in the Clause to development areas and intermediate areas under the Local Employment Acts. The dilemma is that the Government are unsure whether this is a housing Bill or an unemployment Bill. It is no coincidence that areas of high unemployment are also areas of bad housing. A visit to an area with a low economic growth prospect—and this applies to many parts of Britain and particularly to Scotland—will show that there are very bad housing prospects and particularly bad housing conditions. From that point of view, I welcome the opportunity given by the Bill to produce some improvement in these areas.
  I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an opportunity which has been missed by the Government in drawing up Clause 1. They have missed the opportunity to do something for people who are living in very bad housing conditions. I am concerned that the Government have not taken this opportunity to refer specifically to elderly people, the chronically sick and the disabled.
  The Minister showed some insight and some anxiety about this problem of housing when he spoke on Second Reading. After discussing the economic reasons for the Bill he went on to say:
  "But even more important than the economic are the human considerations. We are dealing, after all, not with units of accommodation but with homes and people. Where a dwelling is clearly unfit, those who live in it have to be decanted, to use the jargon, and rehoused elsewhere. At the end of the day they will,

  1711
  of course, get better homes, but the process can be a very painful one. They are uprooted from the surroundings they know; separated from their neighbours; taken away from the shops, pubs and clubs which have formed the background of their daily lives. Objectively looked at by sociologists the end result may be better, but, in my experience, it has often meant frustration and loneliness for the people especially for the older ones."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 790.]
  I do not think that the difficulties of elderly people seeking to cope with bad housing could have been more concisely expressed.
  These words are even more apposite to people who have some physical handicap or suffer from consistent chronic illness. Those of us who have to deal with the problems faced by people in bad housing realise the tragedy of elderly, sick and disabled people who live in old houses with extremely poor amenities. It never fails to amaze me how in these social circumstances tragedy simply piles on social tragedy.
  The sad truth is that so little is being done about this great problem and the Government have not taken the opportunity to take any steps in this Bill. The reason why modernisation of older property is not being undertaken is the scarcity of resources. Those of us who before coming to this House served on local authorities know in a more intimate way than others how difficult it is to draw a balance of priorities. I am satisfied that in the battle of priorities in housing modernisation it is the elderly, the chronic sick and disabled who almost always lose out because they are in the most difficult circumstances.
  Local authorities with a scarcity of resources wish to use the money that is available in the best possible way. They would like to see a modern comprehensive development programme rather than simply taking one house in a street out of turn and bringing that up to standard. They tend to think of a general overall pattern and think about housing improvements rather than social improvements which will benefit the people in the houses. To use an "in" phrase, cost-effectiveness in taking a house out of turn is more expensive than a comprehensive programme and is not necessarily the most efficient use of money. I, like
  1712
  many other hon. Members with large numbers of constituents with housing problems who need urgent improvements in their conditions, want those people to be given a tolerable life.
  To give one example, some months ago I saw in my constituency a blind and handicapped woman who lives in a municipal house, which is a reasonable house when one thinks of the normal slum area. She has lived in that house for 17 years. With the kitchen equipment she has she must climb on a stool to get at her pots and pans. As time passes her infirmities become more difficult to handle and she finds the day-today chores of cooking and keeping house much more difficult. But the local authority says it can do nothing. The bathroom furniture in the house is such that in terms of personal cleanliness she is unable to use the bath because of fear of injury. Again the local authority says it can do nothing. The local social work committee says that it has no resources to deal with this kind of programme and that that particular problem is going from bad to worse and the particular case is far from the worst in the area. The housing committee says that it is not its problem because with so many needs in the area its resources are scarce.
  I hope that the Clause will be used by the Government to take some action and to encourage local authorities to look at this problem. The Minister in reply may well say that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, and the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968, are not his responsibility, and that would be an easy way out for the right hon. Gentleman. But in spite of the growth of super Ministries, whose purpose was supposed to be co-ordination of Government action, all that has happened is an exacerbation of what I regard as one of the prevailing diseases of our parliamentary system; namely, government by watertight compartment.
  12.30 p.m.
  As a result of this, as is so often the case, hardship continues. With the kind of people about whom I am speaking the hardship increases with the passage of time. Much has been said about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and the Social Work (Scotland) Act.

  1713
  Lip service is paid to these Measures but now is the time for urgent action. All is not lost, although because of the tight manner in which the Money Resolution has been drawn amendments have been ruled out of order. Despite that, it is possible for the Government to draw the attention of local authorities to their responsibilities.
  Where there are priority cases combining housing need and bad personal circumstances, there ought to be specific guidance and help for such people. I hope that the Government will take an opportunity here to exercise compassion and issue a circular advising local authorities that under Clause 1 it is possible for them to do more for those who so far have been badly neglected.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I am sure that the entire Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) for making one of the most moving speeches on this subject that I have heard for a long time. He hit the nail on the head when he spoke of our concern for those in poor housing conditions and the chronic sick. We in Scotland have taken action to deal with this in some way. Glasgow university has set up a Department of Gerontology, and the professor of gerontology has said very much the same as my hon. Friend, that the care of the elderly and chronic sick in their own homes, within the environment which they know and understand, is best.
  This was one of the crucial issues that we debated in the Scottish Grand Committee some years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), the then Minister of State, Scottish Office, said that there were a number of elderly people who did not want to move out of the older areas into newer areas because they would not feel comfortable or happy. It is our business to ensure that they are comfortable and happy in the community.
  I was concerned about this question of the two-year or four-year period and whether we should have "completions" or "approvals". When the Secretary of State for Scotland issued his circular, he said that this was a Bill meant not only to improve the lot of those living in uncomfortable houses but to provide employment. That was not just a phrase
  1714
  used last week on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and others. In view of that I am at a loss to understand why there should only be the two-year period. The problem of unemployment in the building industry is not likely to be solved within the next two years. I may be doing the Government an injustice here, but we would much appreciate an extension.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) said he was sorry that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the local authority associations in Scotland had not been consulted. Many of them welcomed the Bill and its intentions but I think that they would have wanted to be consulted about some of the difficulties that can arise in the next two years. I would like to see "approved" instead of "completed".
  For most of my life before I came here I served on a local authority. I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock or his predecessors at the Scottish Office when I tell him that we did not always find the Development Department of the Scottish Office the quickest Department of Government. We sometimes found that it took rather a long time in the initial stages to get any form of approval at all. When we tried to improve houses not on an individual basis but on a street or small area basis—not C.D.A.—we found that it took more time than building a completely new housing scheme.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, is present today, and I hope he will refer his hon. Friend (he Under-Secretary of State for Development to an important study carried out by the Department a few years ago about house improvement in Rutherglen. It is a substantial document detailing some of the difficulties the local authority had. We had difficulties because we could not find the contractors to do the work. They were more than willing to build a large new housing estate but we did not get much of a smile from them when we asked them to undertake this work. While it is true that this Bill is about employment, finding work for our bricklayers and plasterers, if the rate of bankruptcies among

  1715
  small building firms in Scotland continues at its present rate there will not be the organisation to harness these building workers.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Will my hon. Friend pursue that point a little further? He will be aware that when we put work out to tender it is found that the price quoted is inordinately high because it is a "one-off" job for the builder.
  Mr. Mackenzie: That is very true. Having got over the difficulties of obtaining approval and finding a contractor who would work for us, we found that other problems arose. When we took down parts of the wall we found dry rot. Buildings which looked substantial were not all what they seemed. This presented formidable problems for the contractors and the local authorities. We feel genuine concern about this matter and we hope that the Minister will look again at this question of completions and work instead on the basis of approvals.
  Mr. Weitzman: I wish to make three points. First, when we were discussing the Amendment, the Minister very rightly said that he would deal with the question of London on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." As a London Member I feel outraged that London has been excluded in this way. The housing situation in London is dreadful. I need not go into the figures, since hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have already referred to the dreadful position in the capital. Yet here we have a Bill which makes no reference whatever to London and its glaring housing needs. I make a very strong protest about that. I do not know why London is excluded. The Minister said that he would deal with the matter when we debate the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I hope that he will give a satisfactory explanation. Surely the time has arrived when special steps should be taken in this matter at the earliest possible moment. It will be disgraceful if the Government procrastinate.
  Secondly, I turn to the eloquent and moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes). When the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill was going through the House, my hon. Friend the
  1716
  Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), who was then the Parliamentary Under Secretary, leaned over backwards to try to draft the housing provisions in order to assist the chronically sick and disabled. Certain provisions were inserted in the Bill to help the chronically sick and disabled. Special attention was to be paid to their needs. What council has done so? Where has any effort been made? This Clause provided an opportunity to do something for the chronically sick and disabled and to take steps to deal with their crying needs. I need not harrow the feelings of hon. Members by referring to the dreadful cases about which we know and the need for assistance in housing for these people.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, the Minister may shrug it off by saying, "This is not the responsibility of my Department. What have I got to do with it?" We hear that sort of excuse too often. We heard it yesterday in connection with another matter when a Minister was talking about priorities. If ever there was a priority, it is the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. Here was an opportunity to deal with them, and it has been neglected.
  My third point concerns the very narrow way in which the Clause is drawn. Financial assistance is limited to instances in which
  "the works are completed"
  —and the important word is "completed"—
  "before the expiration of a period of two years beginning with the relevant date".
  If that means anything, it means that, whatever order is made, financial assistance cannot be given unless the work is completed by 23rd June, 1973. The Minister must realise what a difficult task this imposes. For example, work started at the beginning of 1973 which cannot be completed by 23rd June, 1973, will not qualify for financial assistance. This makes nonsense of the answer which the Minister gave to me when he said, "We do not want to hold out hope to people. We will make orders in reasonable circumstances and in reasonable cases". He cannot do it under the Bill.
  An Amendment was tabled, which was not selected—I think that I am entitled to refer to it in this discussion—concerning the words "or approved". It would

  1717
  be very simple to cure the difficulty by adding "or approved" after the words "the works are completed". I respectfully suggest to the Minister that, with this limitation of time, he is imposing an impossible task in many cases and is preventing financial assistance from being given where it should be given. I suggest that on Report or in another place he cures the problem by inserting the words "or approved" in the Bill.
  12.45 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I wish to deal first with the point about the time taken by private owners to save their share of the money needed to undertake the improvements for which the Bill provides. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has recently made known the arrangements which it has been able to agree with finance houses in order to cope with the problem of advancing money from the beginning and throughout the period that improvement takes place. They will cope very well with the problem.
  I turn to the general point about people who might be considering improvements now but who have not applied for a grant. Many of them still think that it will be too expensive for them to go through with improvements, and a large number of them will be helped by the provisions of the Bill. I do not know how many hon. Members have had experience of this matter. In my case, it took about nine months from the time that I decided to go ahead to the time when the works were completed. I accept that the Bill is very narrow in its effect and that the Money Resolution has been drawn very tightly—and what an apt expression that is of anything that the Treasury does. To substitute "approved" for "completed" would be a change of wording which would widen the provisions too much. After all, an approval can drag on for a very long time.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to indicate what will happen in cases in which genuine unforeseen delay occurs and somebody who thought that he would receive the larger grant finds, towards 23rd June, 1973, that it looks as though he will receive only the smaller grant. I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least be able to say that he has in mind some way by which he can guide local authorities on how they might manage
  1718
  to avoid the letter of his Bill but obey the spirit of it.
  Genuine problems may well arise towards the end of the two-year period. However, the ending of the two-year period does not mean the ending of improvement grants. They may revert to their present level, but one would have imagined from what has been said that they were coming to an end. I ask my right hon. Friend to see what he can do, with his friends at the Treasury and in the local town halls, to make the provisions of the Clause as reasonable as possible.
  Mr. Lipton: This discussion has indicated that the Clause is not only tightly drawn, but that it will be even more tightly restrictive in its application. Earlier I said that the last six or nine months of the two-year period would be more or less meaningless from the point of view of the improvements envisaged by the Bill. Now I am inclined to think that it will be during the last 12 months of the two-year period during which it will not be worth while making an application under the terms of the Clause as it stands.
  Reference has been made to delays that occur. A number of hurdles often have to be overcome, such as getting planning consent, putting out the contract, and so on. Builders do not like these small jobs. They are a pain in the neck to builders, and local authorities sometimes have to bring pressure to bear to get contractors to undertake this kind of work.
  We are faced with the situation that the Clause will be effective for perhaps the first 12 months of its application. After that I should not recommend anybody to gamble on the possibility of the job being completed by the time the two years are up. I cannot understand why a period of two years has been selected. What magic is there in the two years from 23rd June, 1971, to 22nd June, 1973? I am convinced that by the end of the period the housing problems in London will be as bad as they are now, if not worse.
  It is no use telling someone in desperate need of housing accommodation that he is not living in a development area or an intermediate area. I can imagine what kind of reply I should receive from a constituent of mine who came to me with his housing problem and I said.

  1719
  "You are not in a development or an intermediate area, and therefore I cannot do anything for you within the terms of the Bill". A housing need is a housing need wherever a person lives. It does not matter a damn whether he lives in a development area, in an intermediate area, or in a grey, blue, pink, red, or whatever colour area it is. The need is there, and it ought to be met.
  After all these years during which I have had the honour to represent Brixton I find that I spend more time now on housing cases than I did when I first became a Member. The bulk of my correspondence and work, and the overwhelming proportion of the hardships with which I am expected to deal, arise from housing cases. The numbers are not decreasing, they are increasing all the time, and it is a tragic comment on the whole of our social spectrum, if one likes to so call it that, that in this year of grace, in a capital city like London—and the situation is repeated in our large provincial cities such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Birmingham—there is a growing need for housing, which it seems will never be met.
  I understand that we are not going to divide against the Clause, on the principle, I suppose, that anything is better than nothing. Some people may be able to benefit for perhaps up to 12 months after the Clause gets on to the Statute Book, but it is a miserable concession in the face of a growing and ever-increasing need.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I am disappointed that the Minister has chosen to remain seated during this part of the debate. It would have been helpful if he had answered the many useful points raised on the Amendment, but he chose not to. On the contrary, he said that he would reply to them at the conclusion of this debate. It would have been helpful if, at the start of this debate, he had made clear his intentions.
  In the absence of a reply from the Minister, we must rehearse all the arguments that have been put forward, in the hope that he will accept them. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) when he expresses concern over the fact that London has been excluded from the Bill. I was hoping that
  1720
  the Minister would tell us why he had decided on that course, because the object of the Bill is to increase aid from public funds for housing and area improvements, and under both those headings London must be at the top of the list. There may be other places sharing the top position, but certainly London ought not to be excluded. The Secretary of State, the Minister, and the Under-Secretary of State, are all on record as having made vast contributions, in words at least, to dealing with London's problems, and it seems extraordinary that they should bring in a Bill whose purpose is to assist housing and area improvement, and exclude London from its provisions.
  Since the publication of the Bill I have been approached by people and asked whether I thought that the object of excluding London was to enable London to be dealt with in a special Bill of its own. As London covers one-sixth of the country, and has about 8½ million people living in it, I observed that it jolly well deserved to be treated separately, but I thought that that was unlikely.
  It seemed that perhaps the Minister had made an error of judgment in referring to development areas, because he thought that London was a development area. I concluded that in Committee he would confess that he had made an error, having spoken of it for so many months as though it were one and put the matter right. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the reasons why he has decided to exclude London. It has one-sixth of the population, and is represented by one-sixth of the Members in this House, yet it is excluded. London probably has more of the problems concentrated in its area than are to be found in any other conurbation.
  1.0 p.m.
  I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the Clause is tightly drawn. I do not complain about that. One cannot have an open-ended commitment. It would be foolish to argue for open-ended legislation. There must be some parameters, financial and otherwise. But the trouble here is that it will be impossible for people to exploit the provisions of the Bill, which is what the

  1721
  Minister desires them to do. The Bill should help people to exploit its provisions as soon as possible in the best interests of housing and area improvements. By conjoining the phrase "two years" with the word "completion" the Minister is making certain that a vast range of people will be unable to do that. It is regrettable that the local authority associations were not asked for their comments. It takes a long time to "assemble" property for an area improvement. Applications for grants cannot be made until after lengthy improvements, which can mean a delay of 12 to 14 months.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: A month has already been lost before local authorities can take advantage of the Bill, and one month out of 24 is a large proportion, especially during the holiday period.
  Mr. Brown: I was coming to that. The Minister might say that, on the expectation that the House would approve the Bill in toto, the authorities could have prepared themselves. But since the application will depend on these lengthy procedures, it will be 12 to 14 months before they get the grant. Then work has to be put out to tender, which means a further waiting period. Those of us who have been involved in improvement work know only too well the difficulties involved in accepting the lowest tender, because, half-way through, a builder may go broke. One can place much more reliance on direct labour departments.
  When I was involved in this type of exercise, I set my authority a time limit of eight weeks for a conversion. That was what we regarded as the value of a conversion as against pulling down and rebuilding, since people were rehoused more quickly and rent was paid more quickly. But we never made it. We were lucky to get it done in three or four months.
  Exactly what does the Minister mean by the word "completed"? Does this apply to the original specification of the surveyor or the specification undertaken by the builder? In 99 cases out of 100, extra work is discovered after commencement. No one ever goes for a full survey first, because it is too expensive. It is not always convenient to take up floor boards and so on. It is not until the
  1722
  work is actually under way that extra work is discovered.
  The Minister could have discovered from local authorities the average overspending on conversions and improvements of this type—overspending not because they were badly assessed but because extra work emerged. If this happens after commencement of a contract for two years, if a far greater bill is incurred and the deadline cannot be met, will the Minister make special provision for this? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) says that he has no discretion. In that case, he will not achieve the effect that he claims.
  The moratorium of two years may mean that builders will be harassed by applications to get the work done quickly. If the job is skimped, the applicant may have even more trouble. So the increase of the grant from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. will be offset by greater maintenance costs. Although the Minister gives an applicant £200 or £300, it may cost him £800 in the end. There is a dearth of builders to do this work. Unless he can be guaranteed a long run, a builder cannot assemble all the trades he wants, except at great cost.
  Local authorities have been 10th to implement penalty clauses. Now that the Minister has settled on a period of two years, penalty clauses will be necessary for this kind of work. Otherwise, a builder will be vastly out of pocket or will build a safeguard into his price. So the cost to the Minister will be much higher. I hope that he will advise those who do work under the Bill to include a penalty clause in any contract so as to protect themselves.
  For an area improvement, local authorities must "assemble" the land, survey it, approve requirements and send out the tender. All this takes a long time. The Minister is not doing the best, in his own interests, to improve older houses.
  I pay tribute to any Government who provide more money to improve homes and so add to the housing stock. However, if the Minister refuses to consider our views on this matter we shall have to conclude that he is engaged on a public relations exercise and that the Bill is not designed to do what we

  1723
  imagine he wants it to do. It would be regrettable if local authorities and others were obliged to come to that conclusion, and I therefore beg the right hon. Gentleman to think again.
  Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Most of the points with which I had intended to deal have already been covered by my hon. Friends. I will not delay the House, therefore, except to mention some glaring anomalies with which the Minister must deal.
  Londoners are suffering from some tremendous housing difficulties, including the problem of multi-occupation. This is particularly so in Wandsworth and my part of London. It is grossly unfair, therefore, that good houses in development and intermediate areas should be given 75 per cent. grants to be converted into flats while very poor property in London should receive only 50 per cent. grants. Owner-occupiers and private landlords in the London area are bound to stop applying for improvement grants at 50 per cent. when they realise that, by delaying, they may obtain 75 per cent. in later legislation.
  When I refer to multi-occupation in London I am talking of houses which may have one outside toilet shared by 10 or 20 people. Such houses are probably privately owned by an absentee landlord. In many instances of this kind no improvement grant applications are made. Once a landlord knows that a 75 per cent. grant exists in other parts of the country, he will be bound to delay, if he applies at all, in the hope of the same precentage grant being available in London.
  It is regrettable that this legislation is still permissive. I am certain that at a future date it will be necessary for the Government, Conservative or Labour, to make provisions of this kind mandatory to ensure that improvements are carried out by owner-occupiers and landlords.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: It is staggering to think that 12 million men, women and children in this country will be going home tonight to houses without baths, hot water or inside lavatories. This is an intolerable state of affairs.
  In this day and age millions of industrial workers are having to go home in the evening, after completing a day's dirty
  1724
  work, and ask their wives to heat a saucepan of water so that they can wash their feet. The enamel bowl is still having to come out of the cupboard for washing purposes in far too many homes. In many of these houses old people have to go out to the back yard on cold wet nights to visit the lavatory.
  It is with pictures like this in our minds that we should be considering the Bill. Many of us have been deeply concerned with these problems for a long time and we are anxious to impress on the Government the urgency of the matter, because Clause 1 is the guts of the Measure. I understand that when Bloody Mary died the word "Calais" was inscribed in her heart. When they dig me up they will probably find the words "Bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatories" inscribed deeply on mine.
  1.15 p.m.
  I doubt whether the Bill in general and this Clause in particular are the way to solve this problem. Indeed, I am not sure that driving landlords to make improvements is the answer, particularly if it means creating resentment among tenants because of the trebling of rents once improvements are made; but I will not anticipate my remarks on this subject because I shall have something to say about this later.
  Everybody is extremely proud to spend more money on improvements grants, but I am not sure that the ordinary families living in the sort of conditions I have described are having these improvements done. I fear that the bulk of the money is going on luxury housing.
  According to Government figures, in 1970–after the 1969 Act had been in operation for some time—£11·9 million was spent on discretionary grants and only £7·2 million on standard grants, despite the lavish 50 per cent. grant available under the 1969 Act. It is the standard grant work that we must consider in particular because that provides the necessities of life like bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatories.
  What conclusion can we draw from these figures? There is no guarantee that the additional 25 per cent. made available under this Bill will mean private landlords doing this work. The figures show that owner-occupiers are sensibly taking advantage of the availability of

  1725
  grants, but that most private landlords—I accept that there are some honourable exceptions—will just not be bothered. The problem remains and I fear that it will continue to remain. How many decades must pass before, at the present rate of progress, we have dealt with the 4 million homes that are without these necessities of life?
  In my view, landlords are not the best people to do this job. Local authorities should have the task, and we have seen in Leeds how vast numbers of ordinary houses which previously lacked bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatories have been brought to a high standard as a result of the efforts of local authorities.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I also object to the restrictive nature of the Clause and particularly to its restriction on geographical grounds. Why is it confined to the development and intermediate areas? It has been suggested that the Government are not sure whether this is a housing or an employment Measure. I suggest that on either count its provisions are inadequate.
  A house is a house wherever it is and bad housing conditions are bad whether they are in London or Birmingham or in a development or intermediate area. The problems for the tenants are the same. The provisions of the 1969 Act and earlier legislation were intended to get improvements done at public expense throughout the country, not simply for the benefit of the residents and tenants of those properties but to preserve a valuable asset for the nation. An asset is an asset for the nation whether it is in Scotland or in London or in Birmingham. It is the same asset, and the case for preserving it is precisely the same.
  Birmingham is not yet a development area or an intermediate area but if Government policies are persisted in it may get that way. Unemployment among buildings workers in Birmingham is as bad as it is anywhere in the country or in any of the development areas. We have more than 2,000 building workers unemployed. From the employment point of view, there is precisely the same case for applying the provision to Birmingham as to any development area.
  The Bill is supposed to continue for two years but that period began to run
  1726
  down on 23rd June last. By the time this Measure becomes law, a few more weeks will have elapsed. Another period will elapse before the benefits of the Bill are made known to the ordinary man in the street who qualifies for grant in the private sector. I hope that the Government intend to publicise the scheme, otherwise the Bill will not do any good. Then there will be further delays due to planning, consultation, and the like. Time is so short that I doubt whether the expenditure of the additional £46 million in the time stated by the Government can be achieved.
  Why is the Bill limited to two years? Is it suggested that the back of the problem, even in the development areas or intermediate areas, will be broken in that time? The need will be just as great after that time has elapsed, which means that this provision is quite irrational. It is not surprising that the local authorities—and not only the local authorities—regard the Bill as completely unrealistic. We should like the Minister to reconsider the matter, or at any rate explain the two-year time limit.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I apologise to the House and to the Minister for rushing in and out of the Chamber, and not sitting throughout the debate. Unfortunately, I have had other matters to attend to.
  As my area is a development area it will benefit from the Bill. Liverpool has a high level of unemployment, and the level of unemployment amongst building operatives is much higher on Merseyside than in Birmingham.
  We also have a very serious longstanding housing problem. We have in the twilight areas old types of houses which, unless something is quickly done, will get beyond repair. In the postal district of Liverpool 8 there are good, solid, fine houses which, if they were in the Pimlico area of London, would have been rehabilitated, but that could not be done in Liverpool because the money was not there. They have now gone beyond rehabilitation and are being pulled down, and will, I hope, be replaced by new houses for the workers there.
  There is no doubt that the Bill will marginally help my area, but a number of very important points need to be

  1727
  mentioned. The Liverpool City Council has in the last six months decided not to go ahead with a whole series of plans for rebuilding. It has decided that schemes which were in the pipeline should in some cases be deferred and in others abandoned altogether. There is a tendency amongst local authorities like mine to believe that because they are going ahead with home improvements they should hold up the development of new housing, but in places like Liverpool we need not only home improvement but a continuous housing programme.
  I hope we shall not get into the position where local authorities will use this scheme, as they are tending to use the home improvement plans in the Labour Government's Act, of which this Measure is a continuation, as an excuse for not going ahead with new building. One of the problems is that the Act is permissive and not mandatory, and we find that many landlords, despite applications made by occupiers, are refusing to go ahead with home improvements. That is a very serious state of affairs. The Government must face the fact that sooner or later action will have to be taken to compel landlords to carry out required improvements.
  I hope that we on this side would provide a different solution. We used to think that there were other ways of doing the job—by municipalisation, and so on—and I hope that we shall in future do as we once said we would. Meantime, action needs to be taken to ensure that landlords carry out the work.
  The Bill will help. I never look a gift horse in the mouth, but am generally thankful for small mercies. The Measure does not give us all we want, but it is better than nothing at all. I appreciate, as some of my hon. Friends have said, that some areas that are not development areas have problems equally as bad as those existing on Merseyside. London has an acute housing problem, and so has Birmingham: all our large cities have. We need a national campaign nationally directed and controlled to direct help to the areas of greatest housing need irrespective of whether they are development areas. Nevertheless, the Bill will help considerably, and it will
  1728
  also help considerably in taking up some of the slack of unemployment.
  To suggest that we can solve the problem in two years, or get anywhere near to doing so, is unrealistic. The Minister must look at that time limit again, as he must look again at the problem of the disabled. We had an excellent debate the other day which brought out the simple things that can be done to give immediate help to the disabled, and provision for these people should be in the Bill.
  The Bill is a minimal step forward for the development areas, but it is not enough. It will not solve the problem. We need more time than two years, and we need 100 per cent. Government grant, not 90 per cent. We should welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but we must hope to get much further in the future.
  1.30 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Committee will understand that other parliamentary commitments have made it impossible for me to be here throughout the debate. I apologise to my colleagues for not having heard the opening speeches.
  On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufmann) presented a compelling case for including the City of Manchester within the scope of the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has informed the Committee of the very daunting housing problems in our neighbouring City of Salford. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully and sympathetically on the strong arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend.
  This is a discriminatory Bill. I am not in favour of discrimination. However, if there is to be discrimination, the chronically sick and disabled should benefit. Wherever there is discrimination, it should be based on need. None of us doubts that the homes of many severely disabled people are painful places of detention: the houses are not adapted to the needs of the severely disabled occupants.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) has argued this point at length. He talks from a close and sympathetic interest in

  1729
  all the problems of the chronically sick and disabled. He has also referred to the special problems of the elderly. The Minister will accept that the Government's recent survey into the housing and other problems of the severely disabled makes a strong case for discriminating in their favour. It may be that further guidance should be given to local authorities. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides want to solve the housing problems of the severely disabled. On behalf of all the organisations working to help the chronically sick and disabled, I appeal for further consideration to be given to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North and by myself in this brief intervention.
  Mr. Amery: There have been three main themes running through the debate—first, why is the Bill limited to development areas and why does it not extend to other areas of stress or categories of people in need; second, why are the provisions limited to two years; and, third, which goes with the second point, there is the question about compulsion or approval.
  I want first to deal with some separate points which have arisen. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked what constituted a local authority. A definition is contained on page 2, line 23. To amplify that, county councils are not housing authorities with statutory powers to make improvement grants, so county councils do not come into it.
  Mr. Freeson: I accept what the Minister has said about county councils, but the Bill does not refer to county boroughs as being one of the defined local authority areas. County boroughs have housing authority powers.
  Mr. Amery: The definition is as follows:
  "'local government area' means a borough, urban district or rural district, and in Scotland means the district of a local authority."
  Mr. Freeson: Does that specifically include county boroughs?
  Mr. Amery: County boroughs, but not county councils.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: In Scotland county councils, of which there are 33,
  1730
  are housing authorities, but district councils are not. County councils may devolve their functions to districts. My point was that in most cases they do not.
  Mr. Amery: The point does not arise, as the whole of Scotland is either a development or an intermediate area and, therefore, all the authorities are embraced within the definition in the Bill.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) about consultations with the local authority associations. The only local authority association that has made any representations to us is the A.M.C. The association wrote to us shortly after the meeting of its Housing Committee only the other day. It raised no major point of substance but sought clarification of one or two minor points.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: The association assured me that it had not been consulted. Is the Minister telling me that the association's information is correct and that it was regretting that it had not been consulted about the Bill?
  Mr. Amery: There was no prior consultation before the drafting of the Bill. On the other hand, we have been in touch with the A.M.C, because it was the only one of the local authority associations which wrote to us. It made no complaint and expressed no major objection. It sought clarification on one or two points. The other associations have not even made representations, so I must assume that to that extent they are not dissatisfied.
  I welcomed the intervention by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He has been the only representative of an English development or intermediate area to intervene. The fact that others have not intervened presumably means that they at least are not dissatisfied with the Bill.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that the building industry in Liverpool, particularly small and medium builders, will benefit from the decision we have taken and from the Bill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman also that the unemployment position in the building industry is even more serious in Liverpool than it is in Birmingham. I am not under-rating the importance of the Birmingham situation, though when I was there recently the employers and the trade

  1731
  unions told me that there was a considerable shortage of skilled building operators in the Birmingham area.
  The hon. Gentleman went on, in the context of discussing the Liverpool housing situation, to talk about the need for new building. Here I heartily agree with the hon. Gentleman. Improvement can never be a substitute for new building; it is a complement to it. I hope that when our proposals for the reform of housing finance come forward these will give a new boost to slum clearance and, following from that, to new building.
  The hon. Member questioned whether landlords could be relied on to do the job and whether a measure of compulsion was necessary. I have not got the exact provision in my head, though I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it, but I understand that local authorities have powers under the Housing Act, 1964, on representations made to them by tenants, to require landlords to provide standard amenities. I hope that full use will be made of these powers.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Under the 1969 Act, the local authorities also have powers of compulsion in the case of improvement areas.
  Mr. Amery: Yes, that is right. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) expressed anxiety that the bulk of the grant money was being spent on what he described as luxuries, and he cited in support of that view the £7·2 million devoted to standard grants but more on discretionary grants. In very many cases, the installation of standard amenities requires some additional conversion. From my experience, such as it is, of the work which has been going on throughout the country—I have seen a good deal myself, and I have talked to many people who have seen a great deal more than I have—I judge that the bulk of the expenditure is on a combination of standard amenities and discretionary grant conversions carried out together.
  I put it to the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury that, whatever reservations he has about the Bill, which he expressed clearly and at some length, it has been welcomed by the development area authorities and by the builders in the development areas, as I have found
  1732
  for myself, and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has found on his visits to Liverpool and elsewhere, and it has been welcomed by the organs of public opinion, the local Press and the other mass media in those areas.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked the right hon. Gentleman about the position of local authorities in Scotland. May we have this clear? We do not have the system of urban and rural district councils; we act through burghs or through county councils operating as housing authorities. I do not expect a reply immediately, but will the right hon. Gentleman take this question into account? If someone in the landward area of a county council wishes to have his house improved, do we take it that the only means he can follow to have it done is through the county council, that being the only relevant authority in that place? The county councils are the only bodies who can do it. Is that right?
  Mr. Amery: I understood that the anxiety of the hon. Member for Greenock was on the question of demarcation, the question of which authorities could be responsible. The point is really academic to start with because all the areas are covered; the whole of Scotland is covered by the Bill. A local authority need be only partly within a development or intermediate area to bring the whole of its area, burgh or county, within the Bill.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I am sorry to intervene again, but the right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. If someone in the landward area of a county council wants his house improved, to which agency does he apply? Is it the county council? That is the only body to which he can apply, is it?
  Mr. Amery: He would apply to the local authority which, I understand, would be the county council. Perhaps I am not as familiar as I should be with the situation in Scotland.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the matter is academic, so long as the Bill is not extended and areas are not descheduled, but what we are asking is that he look at this question again because the point might be misinterpreted.

  1733
  My hon. Friend has raised that doubt. Will the Minister consider whether the description should, perhaps, be enlarged a little to make sure that the point is covered? That is all.
  Mr. Amery: I shall look at it, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office could say a word about it when he speaks on Clause 3, which is specifically a Scottish interest.
  I come now to the three main themes of the debate. Why is the Bill limited to the development and intermediate areas? Why is it not applied to London or Manchester, for example? Why does it not make special provision for categories of people in need like the chronically sick?
  1.45 p.m.
  I fully understand that hon. Members representing certain parts of the country or interested in certain categories of people should take the opportunity to press their needs. Those needs are great. No one who has been Minister for Housing for even a few days could be under any illusion about the terribly serious housing situation in London, the worst in the country. I am not saying that the situation is not pretty bad on Merseyside or in other parts; indeed, the great conurbations are in the grip of a serious housing problem. Equally, none of us can fail to be deeply impressed, particularly after the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), by the plea made on behalf of the chronically sick. But this Bill is about the development areas. There may be opportunities on another occasion when other measures are brought before Parliament in due course to consider these other problems.
  The reform of housing finance will do more to combat housing stress, speed up the process of slum clearance and do a good deal to speed up the process of improvement than anything else. But this Bill is limited to the development areas, because we have observed the phenomenon in the English development areas that the rate of take-up of improvement grants, partly for material and partly for psychological reasons, has not been as good as we thought it ought to be and could be. I do not deny, also, particularly as Minister for Construction, that we are glad of the opportunity to
  1734
  help the building industry in those parts of the country.
  The Bill may not cover every problem which could be covered. It is a Bill about the development areas, and to that extent, I suggest, it deserves the congratulation of the Committee rather than its censure.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the appalling problems which London constituencies face. Obviously, from his many travels, he is fully aware of them. But his comments today will give but slight comfort to London Members and the constituents whom they represent. We have heard repeatedly that the Government are to bring forward a special policy to improve conditions. When may we expect to hear about the Government's policy to improve London's housing?
  Mr. Amery: We shall, I believe, be discussing certain aspects of the London housing problem next week, and when the reform of housing finance comes forward there will be other opportunities. I have myself called a conference, which, I hope, will meet in the early autumn, of London boroughs and the G.L.C. to discuss all these matters and try to hammer out a strategy to deal with the London problem.
  What I am pointing out is the present Bill is not an attempt to tackle that problem. I recognise that it may be disappointing to hon. Members not representing development areas to see the development areas given priority in time at this stage, but I hope that, on reflection, they will regard this as a positive contribution, even if it falls short in certain respects of their ideal. Moreover—I hope that I shall not be thought to spoil the atmosphere by making a partisan point—at least, we are doing something for the development areas which might, perhaps, have been done earlier had further and greater thought been given to the matter in time.
  The next great theme is, why a time limit, why the two years? To paraphrase Dr. Johnson in a rather different context, a time limit concentrates the mind wonderfully. It is our view that, if we doubled the period, the effect would be halved. There must be a time limit if we are to get a move on with improvement grants in the development areas. I

  1735
  must tell the Committee that I came away from my visit to Newcastle with this conclusion very much reinforced by conversations with both builders and local authorities.
  Mr. Weitzman: That may be a sound point, but what about "approved" instead of "completed". That would cover the difficulty.
  Mr. Amery: I said that I should come to the question of "completed" and "approved" in due course. At present, I am discussing the question of a time limit. I am sure that we need a time limit. Have we chosen the right one? It is a matter for argument and judgment. We think that on the whole two years is about right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) presented some strong arguments on the need for interpreting it a little differently, giving a little more latitude. I was impressed by what he said, but I feel pretty sure that if we do not have a strict time limit we shall not get the work moving.
  I have been asked how long the grants take to process on average. We reckon that certainly for the first 18 months in which the Bill is in operation it will have a clear and positive effect, and in some cases long after that where the things to be installed are smaller items.
  We shall be advising the local authorities to ensure that all applicants, particularly the later-comers are warned of the consequences of not getting the work done by 23rd June. I do not think that there will be cases of hardship as a result of all this. The 50 per cent. grant will always be available at the end of the day for any work which has not been completed.
  Why completion and not approval? Our anxiety has been that if we limited ourselves to approval the work might not be started or get done. We have had quite a bit of experience of local authorities approving grants but the work not being done, even today, months after the grants have been approved. Therefore, it has been our view that if we are to get the work done it is not enough to put the ignition key into the car. We must get the car started and put our foot down on the accelerator.
  1736
  Hon. Members have expressed their reservations about the Bill and their criticisms. It is right that they should, and this is the proper forum. But I hope that having made their representations and criticisms they will join the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) in saying that it is a positive Bill, that it does help, and that in their constituencies and the country at large they will help to give support to the Bill and encourage people to make use of its provisions and take up the grants, to take the opportunity afforded to them.
  Mr. Freeson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that long before the present Government came into power, long before the Bill was introduced—indeed, long before I entered the House a few years ago—I had been pressing in local government circles for the kind of policy implicit in the 1969 Act and the Bill. I spent much of my time in local government over a number of years pressing the previous Conservative Administration to adopt precisely the policies that were eventually legislated for in the 1969 Act. I say that not unkindly, but to suggest that on that point most of us with experience in these matters do not need even the most gentle of lectures or moralising. We have been at it for a long time.
  I find most of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments unsatisfactory. I shall deal first with the question of the two-year period and the points argued about changing from "completion" to "approval". Whilst the original Amendment has not been selected for debate, a manuscript alternative has been put forward which I understand the Chair finds acceptable and within order, and I understand that it will largely meet the kind of points that have been worrying my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, as well as myself, on the question of the time limit within the two-year time limit of the Bill—the time limit implicit in the word "completion".
  We have a two-year period laid down in which a take-up of an additional £46 million is involved over and above the existing level of expenditure. On Second Reading we sought without satisfaction to get information on the current level of expenditure projected forward into 1972 and 1973, so that we could relate

  1737
  the figure of £46 million to the existing estimates for the three-year period. I have serious doubts whether, under the Clause as it stands, the £46 million which the Government have said they wish to make available can be taken up. I have had to seek this information because it was not forthcoming from the Minister; he can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the 1971 expenditure on improvements policy is expected to be about £22 million before the Bill comes into operation. That is well below the £40 million which was forecast in the Financial Memorandum to the original substantive Act, the 1969 Act. Presumably there will be a further increase in 1972, of a percentage that I do not know, and in addition to the £22 million now, there must be about £10 million to £15 million expected by the Government to come from the £46 million allocation spread over.
  We do not expect the largest take-up to occur in the first year. It will be a cumulative build-up, no doubt. But let us assume that it is expected to be about £10 million, building up to about £18 million to £20 million extra that will be taken up in the next year. Is the Minister seriously telling us that within the strict ambit of the Clause we shall get a 33½ per cent. increase on the 1971 expenditure on improvement grants? Is he also telling us that if the figure of improvement grants expenditure in 1972–73 is about £30 million to £33 million—a considerable increase on the current expenditure—we may expect a further £15 million to £20 million to be taken up in addition to the £30 million next year within the strict ambit of the Bill?
  What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is, in effect, that he expects the Bill will have such a tremendous impact in the intermediate and development areas, to quote what the Under-Secretary said on Second Reading, that we can expect to see about a £45 million total take-up of expenditure on improvement grants in 1972–73, and an even bigger take-up in the following year before the Act expires. I cannot argue on the basis of fact that that will not be so. We cannot know at this stage. But on the basis of experience we cannot expect that to result from a Bill which, as the Minister
  1738
  agrees, is narrowly drawn in terms of time as well as in other respects.
  2.0 p.m.
  I must express grave doubts as to whether the Bill, because of its very nature and drafting, will enable the money which the Government have provided for to be actually taken up by the local authorities. If I am wrong in this, I will happily join the right hon. Gentleman—if necessary, against the advice of my parliamentary colleagues—in a tour to congratulate the local authorities concerned, although I should like that tour to have included the London area as well as other housing distress areas which are omitted from the Bill.
  I do not believe that the Bill will allow this £46 million to be spent. Indeed, I do not believe that the Government themselves are fully confident that, within the narrow terminology of the Clause, such a sum can be taken up. I repeat that it is not sufficient to introduce a Bill and declare that £46 million is available unless we can have the disposal of the money monitored and reported on to the House and the public. We are entitled to know what the take-up of the £46 million is when the Bill is in operation. We are entitled to an undertaking that, whatever means he chooses to use, the right hon. Gentleman will keep us informed of the take-up. After all, this is public money that we are authorising for the Government, and we are entitled to know how it is to be spent.
  Mr. Lipton: At least six-monthly reports should be provided showing how the take-up is proceeding.
  Mr. Freeson: I would not stipulate six-monthly reports from the very beginning of the operation, but purely for practical reasons. One could not for the first six months get very worth-while information, but certainly within the first year or so—perhaps within nine to 12 months from the date of operation—we should certainly be entitled to have six-monthly or quarterly information, which could be included in the quarterly statistics for housing which are published by the Government.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will be wary in asking about the take-up of this money. We must not forget that the cost of improvements will

  1739
  be heavily inflated. During the two-year period, there will probably be far greater cost in carrying out this work. The result may be that, while the take-up will be adequate, fewer improvements will be done because the cost of each improvement will have been inflated. Thus, even if the take-up of the money is at a high level, it does not necessarily follow that the range of work being done is as great as it might have been.
  Mr. Freeson: I appreciate that point. but in the quarterly housing statistics there are figures on a regional breakdown basis of take-up of improvement grants, which would balance up my point. It might be possible to include in the statistics a column of figures showing not just the regional breakdown but a breakdown for the development and intermediate areas for which the money is being authorised. I hoped the right hon. Gentleman will consider that suggestion. We are entitled to this information. We want to know how the policy is working.
  It could be said, I suppose, that it is easy enough to say this now that we are in Opposition, but the sophistication of the statistics of housing was an aspect in which I was particularly interested during my short spell at the old Ministry of Housing and Local Government. For example, statistics on improvement grants now appear. That, however, was only the first move. I hope that we can have a much greater breakdown of information on how the policy under the Bill is working. I hope that that information will be equivalent in detail to other information about housing. I make this point seriously and not just as a debating point. I have indicated broadly the way in which such information could be made available to the House and the public.
  The other major point to cause so much concern, not only on this side of the Committee but on the other side, is the exclusion from the Bill of housing priority and housing stress areas. The question of the representations by the Association of Municipal Corporations about the Bill has been raised. The right hon. Gentleman said that no complaint or any point of substance had been made about the Bill to the Department. I do not know the basis of that statement, but I have here a letter from the A.M.C. which has
  1740
  been sent to a number of hon. Members. There is no doubt about the language used. The letter says:
  "The Association's Housing Committee are strongly of the opinion that, in addition to authorities in the development areas or intermediate areas, there are other authorities with housing needs which would welcome the increased assistance now provided for improvement of older but still substantially sound housing stock."
  The letter makes a number of other interesting points which the A.M.C. hoped that we would put and would be accepted by the Government. I shall not go into more detail about these representations because some of my hon. Friends have already dealt with them, but it should go on record that the Minister has understated the position with regard to the association's view of the Bill. It does have points of substance to make about it and it has stated them in correspondence with hon. Members. I should be surprised to learn that similar points of substance were not directed to the Department. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. If the A.M.C. has not contacted the Ministry in similar terms, that is not my responsibility, but there is no doubt about the terms of its letter to hon. Members. It refers to the fact that the association was not consulted on the Bill before it was presented to the House.
  Mr. Amery: I want to clear this up. I would not want there to be any impression that I misled the Committee. The only regret expressed by the A.M.C. which I am aware of was that expressed about the drafting of Circular 46/71, which was related to the 1969 Act. Whether this has been confused with the drafting of the Bill I do not know. To the best of my knowledge and that of my senior officials, we have had no representations on the Bill. Equally, the other criticisms have not reached me.
  Mr. Freeson: I can only place on record what has reached me and other hon. Members about consultation. The letter from the association says:
  "It is, however, a matter of regret to the Association that it was not consulted on the Government's proposals, and that no opportunity was given for discussion on the inclusion of other local authorities within the scope of the Bill."
  That is quite specific. However, the correspondence between the association

  1741
  and the Department is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman and the association and not for me.
  I turn now to the major point of the exclusion of housing priority and housing stress areas from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to this matter. He has merely restated the position. He has said that the Bill is concerned with development and intermediate areas. That we already knew. Indeed, that is what we are querying—not that it applies to development and intermediate areas but that it does not apply in equivalent terms to other areas with equal housing difficulty or, in most cases, of greater housing difficulties. To answer by merely stating what we already know is neither an argument nor an explanation.
  The Minister says that we must await further legislation and proposals on the London position which will arise from the review of housing finance which is under way in the Department. This again is no answer. In the first instance, the review and the White Paper which will be presented to the House prior to legislation will deal not only with London, but with the housing situation in the country as a whole. So far as it deals with stress areas, it will deal with a variety of such areas in order to assist the large conurbations with the worst housing problem. Therefore, it is no argument to say that, because there is to be general housing legislation to deal with certain major policy matters which are related to what is before us, we should leave it at that and that the matter of stress areas does not arise in connection with this Bill.
  I argue the opposite way, as I did on Second Reading. If we are now to accept, as I accept, that it is right to try to shift the emphasis of help to those areas with the gravest problems, then it is wrong that this Bill should run in the opposite direction. Figures were quoted on Second Reading last Friday—and they are correct because I have checked them—which showed that the majority of areas which will benefit from this Bill are not in areas of the worst housing stress. A breakdown of the figures was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), and they were very interesting figures indeed. They give an explanation as to why in these particular areas the percentage of increase in take-up of improvement grants in the general
  1742
  system has not been as great in some instances as in areas like London, Birmingham and others.
  I feel that the Ministers are playing with percentages and their argument factually is weak. The points covered by the Bill undoubtedly include areas of serious housing stress. However, when one examines the list of areas which was attached to the Press release issued when the Bill was announced and checks the housing situation in those areas against information available in the Ministry, it can be seen that the majority are not the areas of greatest need, whereas areas outside the scope of the Bill have the worst housing problems in the country.
  There has been no argument either on Second Reading or in Committee today to justify this view on housing grounds. The only argument which can be used, and which has been suggested by one or two of my hon. Friends, is that basically this is an unemployment Bill; that it is not concerned with areas of high housing priority so much as with areas of depression—largely, though not entirely, due to the dismantling of the previous Administration's policies in the development and intermediate areas. If one looks at the facts, it cannot be refuted that there is a case for including within the Bill areas of housing stress. I hope that between now and the time when the Bill is dealt with in another place the Government may yet have further thoughts on this matter.
  2.15 p.m.
  I should like to give some important basic facts and I shall concentrate on the area of most serious housing difficulty, the Greater London area. According to the latest available Ministry information, contained in studies made in 1967 on the London conurbation—and the situation will not have changed markedly since that time—some 46 per cent. of dwellings in Greater London were built before 1919. This compares with 39 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole. A further 36 per cent. of houses in London were built between 1919 and 1944, compared with 29 per cent. for the country as a whole. So that, although 31 per cent. of dwellings in England and Wales were built in or after 1945, in the last generation or so, in the Greater London area the figure is only 18 per

  1743
  cent. That paints the broad situation in London in terms of the age of property.
  If we look at some other basic information which is directly relevant to this Bill, we find that in Greater London as a whole over a third of all households lack the exclusive use of the basic amenities of a hot water system; namely, bath, handbasin, inside toilet and a kitchen sink. In regard to the other areas which lie around the Inner London areas, excluding Greenwich which has somewhat suburban housing conditions compared with the rest of Inner London, one sees that in places like Brent and Haringey, which should be classified as Inner London boroughs although officially they are classified as Outer London, 46 per cent. of houses lack bathrooms, inside toilet, a hot water system and the like.
  The figure in Islington—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) is present, and he will know all about this figure—rises to 67 per cent. But that area is excluded from the provisions of the Bill. There is no area in the country with a figure that high. There is a gradation from a figure of 40 per cent. to 53 or 54 per cent., and then one goes through the central London area and finds in Islington this appalling situation. Since I am sure we all agree that this is an appalling figure, why have the Government brought forward this Bill, which is good so far as it goes but deliberately excludes from the Bill's benefits those areas with the worst housing problems? Why does the Bill include the local authority areas which are at the top of the 50 or so areas with good housing conditions?
  This is not good enough. We do not expect the Minister today to say that he will change the nature of the Bill, but I hope that something can be done when the Bill goes to another place. Although I realise that we have not been able to debate an Amendment on this matter, I would make one plea to the Minister. This refers to what I would describe as the Minister's false argument in saying that we should await the statement of Government policy about future legislation on housing finance which, among other things, will it is hoped deal with areas of stress. If that is the situation, then the sooner it happens the better.
  1744
  We must presume that conclusions have been drawn in the Department relating to problems of slum clearance and new building. If the Minister is saying that consideration of housing priority areas in the big conurbations cannot be included in the scope of the Bill but that we shall have an alternative later in the year, I urge him seriously to consider including in the White Paper provisions such as are contained in Clause 1 on the development and intermediate areas to enable subsequent legislation to deal with areas of stress and greatest housing need.
  If we are to confine ourselves in this future legislation to slum clearance and new building it will in no way be relevant to this Bill which does not deal with new building or slum clearance but with giving certain help in certain areas for the improvement of properties which are basically sound, but in need of modernisation. The problem in London is that there are about 250,000 such dwellings in the Inner London area—a very high percentage. If legislation is to be announced shortly dealing with the problems of stress areas that is when we can take up the question of London again. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the proposals in a future White Paper will deal also with additional help to the stress areas for housing improvements, broadly on the lines before us today.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend is whistling in the wind. From information already well-known and well-founded there is no such element. This is purely a financial Bill which is to come before the House and which is an attempt to push up council house rents and to reduce the Government commitment as far as possible.
  Mr. Freeson: It is precisely because until now we have understood that the White Paper being drafted is confined to council estates, rent policies, subsidies, slum clearance and new building that I put it to the Minister that if he is raising the prospect of a White Paper to help the stress areas as an answer to the arguments being advanced today dealing with the exclusion of such areas in this Bill, it follows logically that he should have another look and include this extra help on improvement policy in such legislation.

  1745
  I would have argued this even if we had not had the Bill today. It is not sufficient to provide this additional help only to limited slum clearance and new building. We need a special effort for those much larger areas of housing improvement, for properties which will be with us for many years to come. I hope that the Minister can give an indication, if not an undertaking, that he is prepared to look seriously at the possibility of bringing the treatment of housing stress areas into line with the general objectives of the Bill, which we all support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  The Deputy Chairman: Before calling the next Amendment I wish to say that new Clause 2 and the Amendments which have been submitted have now been selected. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to read the Amendments to the new Clause which is on the Notice Paper. They are:
  In new Clause 2, line 2, delete the words "and subsection (3)".
  In line 3, delete the words "and subsection (4)" and the last word "and" of that line and
  In line 4, delete "section 18, respectively,".
  It will be possible to read them when we come to the new Clause, but I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to have the details now.

Clause 2

  INCREASE IN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 35, leave out '75' and insert '90'.
  The Deputy Chairman: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 24:
  Clause 3, page 4, line 15, leave out '75' and insert '90'.
  Dr. Mabon: The Minister of Housing and Construction, in a rare moment of partisan displeasure, said that if only we had improved the figures of grants while we were in office things would not have been as bad as they are. I am paraphrasing here, of course. It was said almost sotto voce. It was meant to be a mild criticism of us. I have read through the Housing (Scotland) Bill minutes and, as I thought, there is not a single case of the then Opposition suggesting higher rates.
  1746
  That may be proof of their public responsibility but it does not mean that the Opposition then were keenly aware of what the Minister now knows; namely, that these figures should be higher. I begin my argument with the proposition, on which we are all agreed, that the present levels should be higher. We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, that we are taking these Amendments seriatim because no doubt each has arguments peculiar one to another.
  I am disappointed that the Minister, in acknowledging what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) argued and what I have tried to argue about the experience of both his Department and the Scottish Office in relation to what has gone on since August, 1969, did not answer the point. He satisfied himself with Dr. Johnson. I like Dr. Johnson, but that is not good enough as an argument. We are saying that the rate of preparing to apply is very important. The Minister gave us no indication how this would influence the amount of money spent.
  I cannot talk in absolute terms for England because of Clause 1. I have the English, Welsh and Scottish figures for current expenditure. I cannot give the English position because it is too difficult to break up as a result of Clause 1. I will take Scotland, which is entirely within the Bill and the old Acts which we seek to amend. At the moment planned expenditure for improvements and conversions in Scotland, according to the estimates of the Exchequer, in the current financial year stand at £1,644,000.
  I include in that a small item for the improvement of environment of residential areas. According to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, speaking in the Scottish Estimates debate in Committee on 24th June, 1971, the amount of money to be taken up by the Bill within that category spread over the three financial years of 1971 to 1974 was £15 million. That was his estimate of the Scottish position. He qualified it by saying that it depended upon the extent to which local authorities and home owners took advantage of the increased grants and how attractive it all seemed.
  I return to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment during last week's debate. My hon.

  1747
  Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) asked him if this money was in addition to the money currently available. The answer was loud and clear. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "Yes, I can give that assurance. That is the position. My understanding is that that is exactly the situation. It is an increase of £46 million …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 842.]
  In short, there will be an increase from £1,644,000 in the present year to £6,644,000. We do not propose these Amendments in a light-hearted way [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary may have been tempted in Opposition to do so but I never would do so. Our contention is that it is doubtful whether the Government can spend all this money in time. As a Minister I used to resent it bitterly if my budget was under-spent. The thought of money going back to the Treasury after all the bitter fights we had in Cabinet Committees to get it used to nauseate me. Therefore, I did my damnedest to make sure that we spent it, because it was much-needed money. I want this £15 million to be spent, and I believe that if we raise the figure in a short, sharp exercise like this there will be the greatest possible uptake.
  2.30 p.m.
  I asked the Minister whether he had any information about how long it took for proposals to become real applications. He has not given the information, and I regret that. It must be available in the Department. Can he give us the number of applications in the pipeline? That figure, too, must be available. In the seven days since Second Reading I have contacted the local authorities in Scotland, but they are unable to give me any information about their intentions. The Bill has taken them completely by surprise. I admit that it is not an unwelcome surprise, but they cannot give estimates.
  If we are to achieve anything by the Bill, we should raise the rates substantially The attractiveness of the Bill would then be even greater than it was when the Minister proposed it. On what basis of investigation and inquiry in the Department has the fiure of 75 per cent. been arrived at? Was this one of the judgments of Solomon? Was it a guess? Is it just a hope? If so, it is not good
  1748
  enough. Both the English and the Scottish Departments have had a year in which to make a judgment. This is a brave Bill in that it hopes to achieve something in two years. It must therefore be brave enough and courageous enough in the money sense to succeed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) will later be talking about Amendment No. 21. I do not wish to impinge on that discussion, but I make a reservation about it. I accept that money can be abused. I should not like the Minister to turn that argument against me. I should like him to confine himself to the point of judgment about whether 75 per cent. is right or whether it should be more than 75 per cent., given that it will be impossible to spend all this money in such a short time. It will be impossible to get in the applications in time to make the Bill work. I should like to know what information there is in the Department to substantiate the Minister's claim.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: I am in some difficulty about supporting the Amendment. Our main purpose is to seek to improve housing generally for the people most in need.
  We are concerned with two distinct groups of people. There is first the owner-occupier, and I am all in favour of the largest grants being made available to him. I have in my constituency people who have sunk all their savings into buying property and have sought to improve it over the years. It is often their only asset. As they improve their house, the whole tone of the area improves. We should encourage this development.
  I am particularly concerned about the second group of people. The Bill does not include London, but it is possible to get 50 per cent. grants in London. This has been done in the London Borough of Hammersmith, in which I lived until very recently and which is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart). Properties have been bought by people who had no great housing need. They obtained a housing improvement grant and in a matter of months the properties were sold for a very handsome profit or were let at a very substantial rent. This is no way helped to solve the appalling housing

  1749
  problem which existed in Hammersmith and in many other parts of London.
  The danger of the Amendment is this. People will take the opportunity of buying very dilapidated property, obtaining a 90 per cent. grant and, in a short time, making a very handsome profit by selling it or by charging very substantial rents. This will not solve the housing problems which so many people face, and this should be our principal consideration.
  I hope that the Bill will encourage local authorities to enter into the property market and buy and improve properties and let them to people living in their area. I should warmly welcome a 90 per cent. grant made available to them. There are many responsible housing associations. I should welcome it if they were allowed 90 per cent. grants because whatever properties they are able to improve are invariably let to people in housing need, and this will help the people I see each week who ask for my help in their housing problems.
  I should therefore be opposed to the introduction of a 90 per cent. grant if, as is my fear, it were abused by what I term speculators in property. I hope that the Minister will give us a clearer indication of the kind of use to which he would wish to see the grant put, assuming that he is prepared to support the introduction of a 90 per cent. grant. I hope he would ensure that it was used for the benefit of people in genuine housing need.
  There is no housing problem in London or anywhere else if a person has sufficient money, if not to buy a property, then to afford the rent being asked. If a person can afford to pay £8 or £10 a week in rent, he can go into any estate agent's office in London and obtain a property virtually overnight. We should seek to help the people who are in the majority and who are hard pressed to pay rents of £5 or £6 a week.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I have come in to the discussions on the Bill at a very late stage, but, having listened to part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), I am inclined to agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) than I am with him, although I think that their intentions are
  1750
  the same; namely, to improve the quality of what we have chosen to invest in a national social service—and that is what it amounts to.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I was not allowed by the Chair, quite rightly, to develop the argument on Amendment No. 21, although I referred to it. I acknowledged that the later Amendment dealt with the question of standard grants. We are not saying that we are in favour of Amendment without any qualification. The present Act is defective in that sense.
  Mr. Hamilton: That comforts me a little.
  The Government were elected partly on the proposition that people must stand on their own feet. For them to say, "You are not going to stand on your own two feet. We are going to help you as to 75 per cent. In other words, you will stand on one-and-a-half of your own two feet with the help of the Government", is a strange contradiction of the principles on which they operate. But we understand the contradiction.
  In this matter some people cannot or will not stand on their own two feet, and the Government must step in. Nevertheless, the abuses referred to by my hon. Friend are very real ones. They are not less real in Scotland than they are in London; indeed, they may well be worse in Glasgow, in proportion to the population, than in London. We have rapacious landlords, waiting to take over dilapidated properties, obtaining these generous grants and then selling the properties off at extortionate prices or letting them at exorbitant rents. Unless the kind of suggestion mentioned by my right hon. Friend is adopted, offering some protection against abuses, I shall have great hesitation in supporting a proposition of this kind.
  Far too little housing is provided by non-profit making organisations—whether local authorities, housing associations or co-operative enterprises. I speak with a little family experience of co-operative enterprise. My daughter obtained a house from a co-operative enterprise in South-East London not many years ago. Its houses were newly built. There was no question of a large deposit or of buying the houses, but for tax purposes the rent paid was treated as if it were interest on a mortgage. That kind of co-operative

  1751
  endeavour should be given far more publicity by the Government and other responsible bodies than has been the case hitherto.
  In Scandinavia this kind of enterprise is helping to solve the housing problem far more successfully than we have been able to solve it, precisely because there is this co-operative, non-profit-making endeavour. The Government, tied by their own dogma, are seeking to solve the problem by pouring public money into private pockets with far too little protection against the kind of abuses to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us exactly what his views are and how, exactly, he will protect the public purse from the abuses of existing legislation which will undoubtedly be indulged in by private speculators.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Everybody in the House has heard of the Mason-Dixon line in America. Not everybody approves of it; some progressive people object to it. We are not speaking of the Mason-Dixon line today; we have the Dickson Mabon line. Not all progressive people will be bursting with enthusiasm for that either. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), I must admit that he stressed the fact that he would advocate an increase in grant only if certain reservations were provided—notably, some protection for tenants.
  Let us take this to its logical conclusion. The landlord's contribution used to be 12½ per cent. I can take the Minister to some fine improvements carried out on that basis in my constituency. Under the 1969 Act the grant was raised to 50 per cent. The proposal that we are considering would raise it to 75 per cent. My hon. Friend would like to see a 90 per cent. grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested a 100 per cent. grant. Why not a 190 per cent. grant? Where would it stop.
  In questions of supplementary benefits there is the keenest, closest and sometimes cruellist examination of the need of the applicant. There is no suggestion of any such examination for landlords. The landlords of whom we are speaking are not usually needy landlords; they are
  1752
  big property companies. They will receive a hand-out of £1,500. I suggest that we should go easy in this matter. There are other ways of tackling the housing problem without unlimited handouts to landlords.
  2.45 p.m.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) began by taking me to task for having suggested, earlier, that we were doing something whereas when he and his colleagues had the opportunity they did nothing. He said, "Ah, but when you were in Opposition you did nothing". That is true. We waited until we had power to act. It is only when the right hon. Gentleman is in Opposition that he comes along with the offer of a majestic hand-out.
  The effect of the Amendments would be to increase the maximum proportion of standard grants made by local authorities to private owners, owner-occupiers and landlords in England, Wales and Scotland to 90 per cent. of the approved cost of the works undertaken. The Bill already provides for an increase from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. That is quite a generous increase, which will leave the owner-occupier or landlord to find only 25 per cent. of the cost of improving his house. The landlord or owner-occupier would no doubt be pleased if he had to find only 10 per cent., as proposed in the Amendment. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should have discovered this new solicitude for landlords. Is this a bid for the landlords' vote in the development areas?
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) took time off from writing the article that we are all looking forward to reading on Sunday to join the debate to help unmask the plot into which the right hon. Gentleman has been leading us. Bearing in mind that the owner-occupier or landlord is having his property improved it would seem reasonable that he should contribute 25 per cent. To go as far as the right hon. Gentleman proposes and increase the grant to 90 per cent. would accentuate still further the disparity of treatment between development and intermediate areas on the one hand and other areas on the other, which has been criticised by some hon. Members.
  Mr. Freeson: Before the Palladium closes down—since the Minister has laid much stress on the point about the suggested additional aid to landlords will he indicate the current level of take-up of grants by landlords? I believe that prior to the 1969 Act coming into effect the estimate was that only 22 per cent. of all improvement grants annually were taken up by landlords. Have we any information about the current take-up for tenanted properties, as distinct from owner-occupier and local authority properties?
  Mr. Amery: I cannot give the hon. Member that information off the cuff. I am now advised that the proportion is about one-third. If the hand-out suggested by the party opposite to landlords were followed I am sure that they would be very grateful.
  It may be argued that the Amendment simply brings the grant to private owners into line with the Government contribution of 90 per cent. of the loan charges incurred by the local authority in paying the grant. That is a false argument. The object of raising the Government contribution towards expenditure by local authorities from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. is to enable them to give the higher level of grant without putting on them a higher burden than at present—and. indeed, enabling them to reduce it.
  For those reasons I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he need not press the Amendment.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I enjoy listening to the Minister, not only publicly, but privately, when he entertains us with his political ripostes, but that was a completely irresponsible reply.
  We are all concerned that landlorded properties should be improved. The Tory Party may believe—although it did not do very much when in office before—that it should improve landlorded properties without conditions. Reference was made in an earlier debate to the scheme which we introduced in August, 1969. One of the first duties of a Minister on taking office is to look at schemes for which he is responsible to see whether they ought to be improved. The Minister's only comment about that scheme was that one or two administrative details were wrong, but nothing born of Statute
  1754
  was wrong. It means that the Minister is content with the proposition about grants to landlorded properties.
  From a seated position—I do not criticise him for that—the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture at the Scottish Office said that one-third of landlorded properties in Scotland were improved.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I did not say that that was in Scotland.
  Dr. Mabon: If those properties were not in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman should make that clear, because he is here as the responsible Scottish Minister. The figure quoted by my hon. Friend was 22 per cent. in relation to England and Wales. He does not presume to speak for Great Britain in this context. I warn the hon. Gentleman that I have the figures for Scotland.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In that case, why does the hon. Gentleman not give them to the Committee? The question was asked about England and Wales. If the question were asked about Scotland, I should be delighted to answer it. I understand that the take-up for Scotland is about four-fifths by owner-occupiers, and one-fifth by landlords.
  Dr. Mabon: That is not quite right, unless the Under-Secretary of State for Development at the Scottish Office is wrong, because, in the Scottish Estimates Committee on 24th June, he said that the figure for private tenemental homes in 1964 was 900, and in 1970 it was 1,100. Everyone in Scotland knows that the vast majority of landlorded homes are in tenemental properties, and that they are the most difficult to improve. They cause all the trouble. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Cullingworth Report, and at the survey for Glasgow, he will see that the figure is devastatingly bad.
  I think that we must deal seriously with this issue of giving money to landlords to improve properties. I do not mind the Minister's banter. In fact, I enjoy it. He is good fun at times, and for the kind of Conservative that he is, he can be very enjoyable. But it is not good enough to answer a serious debate in the lighthearted way that he did. He answered the debate on Clause 1

  1755
  by saying nothing. The strong case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) was completely ignored. The Minister cavalierly dismissed my hon. Friend's argument.
  We are told that the figure of 75 per cent. has been chosen in order to stimulate people to act more responsibly. When I ask why we should not make it 90 per cent., the Minister seeks to summon my hon. Friends to his support against the landlords. My heavens—and I am tempted to go further—that is irresponsible.
  I am prepared to say that the grant should be given under stricter conditions. If the Minister were to propose a more responsible Bill, we should be able to add various provisos to it. We shall seek to debate this issue shortly when we come to Amendment No. 21. The Minister has not told us why he has chosen 75 per cent. When we ask the reason for its selection, he should not merely sneer at the landlords and say that they do not deserve any more.
  The Minister proposes to allow this increase for two years. In Scotland he will have to spend three times as much as he is spending this year. He must, therefore, receive applications three times as fast as they are coming in now, and they must come in very quickly—almost literally immediately—if we are to get this work done.
  I cannot believe that the Minister thinks we are content with the simple answer that he has given. I hope that he will not treat us in this way when we debate the other Amendments, particularly when we debate standard grants for local authorities, and we ask to be told the basis on which they are decided.
  I cannot believe that, with the army of officials that he has behind him, and with the advisers that he has, no homework has been done on this issue. I cannot believe that there is not a sample survey in the Scottish Office. The civil servants at the Scottish Office are first-class, and I cannot believe that they have not done a sample survey. Nor can I believe that the Department of the Environment has no information whatsoever to guide it in deciding what to do. I find it breathtaking that we are not given
  1756
  any of the relevant evidence. The Minister is hinting that it does not exist, but I just cannot believe that.
  I am sure that there must be evidence for the Government's view. I should like the Minister to tell us why this figure has been chosen, and why they are not in favour of a short sharp measure to improve the situation. I am not saying that this figure of 90 per cent. should be permanent. That is purely arbitrary. It could be 85 per cent., 80 per cent., 95 per cent., or almost any other figure. I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggests, or as far as saying that it should be 190 per cent., but that is not the point. What we want to know is why the figure in the Bill has been chosen.
  The Minister may say that it is an entirely arbitrary figure, that he had a dream one night that it was 75 per cent., but I can hardly believe that even this Government govern themselves by imagination, nightmares and dreams. I cannot believe that.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I can.
  Dr. Mabon: I ask the Minister to entertain us on some other occasion, and on this to give serious answers to the questions that have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and myself. Why has the figure of 75 per cent. been chosen? Where is the evidence to substantiate its selection?
  3.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I do not believe that the Department dreamed up £46 million. Nor do I believe that it dreamed up the development and intermediate areas. It clearly had a strategy which led it to think that this limitation was right in terms of development and intermediate areas, and that £46 million was the right sum of money. Furthermore, it would have had to take the argument further. Having decided on £46 million, it would have to consider how long that would last. Having done that, it has chosen a period of two years. Presumably, work in the pipeline would be cut off if it was not completed within two years. Presumably it does not matter if people cannot start until August or September. What is the information on what the Minister bases his conviction

  1757
  that this will satisfy a particular need and that must be 75 per cent.?
  People will be inundating us soon with queries about other matters, such as the price of kangaroo meat. Surely we are entitled to know the answers to these questions. Surely the Minister wants the highest possible amount if his object is to encourage improvements. If we took the average cost of conversion of £3,000 the £46 million would stretch to about 15,000 properties. Have the Minister's advisers shown him that an absolute maximum of 15,000 properties will solve the problem? Or does he expect that it will cost half of £3,000–or twice that amount—per unit?
  He cannot argue that he does not have to tell us. This is the House of Commons. He chose to bring forward this Bill with the maximum publicity and he cannot now say, "I am very sorry, but I will not tell you anything. I have laid down the figure at £46 million and I will not tell you who will get it. I have told you that the rate will be 75 per cent. and you must make your own arrangements to find out more." That is not the way to treat the House. We are entitled to know why he decided against 100 per cent. and for two years. Did he just flip a coin? Is this the way to rush through an urgent Bill with restrictions on areas and timespan? Does the Minister believe that another 15 per cent. would take him over the £46 billion so much more quickly?
  The more I listen to the Minister the more I am driven to think that I should not support the Bill, because there is more behind it than the Minister has said. If he wants our co-operation, he should give us more facts so that we can decide whether he has been prudent.
  Mr. Freeson: Are we not to receive a reply from the Minister to the valid points of policy that have been put to him? Are we, not for the first time, to be treated in this fashion? Some specific requests have been made about points that should be taken into account before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. They must be considered and replied to by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I remind the Minister that we are in Committee. We are not indulging in banter. I trust that if this debate were going on in a small Committee room up-
  1758
  stairs a different atmosphere would prevail. I urge the Government to adopt a more serious attitude and to deal adequately with points put to them.
  What estimate of grant take-up gave rise to the figure of £46 million spread over three years in terms of expenditure and only two years in terms of grant applications? These are important matters to which my hon. Friends have referred on many occasions. Such an estimate must have been made, even in broad terms. If not, it is an appalling indictment of the way in which the Government are handling the Bill.
  On Second Reading the Under-Secretary said that any Bill of this kind would inevitably be "rough and ready". That was an odd phrase for a Minister to use about his legislation. We demand an answer to the questions we have asked because the matter cannot be left like this.
  Mr. Amery: The Committee has before it an Amendment designed to increase the proportion of grant from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. I assume when I look at Amendments tabled by the Front Bench opposite that they are serious proposals made in a serious attempt to improve the Bill. I believe that this one is entirely frivolous—[Interruption.]—that it was not tabled with the aim of improving the Bill and that no attempt has been made to produce calculations to substantiate why the figure should be 90 per cent.
  It was fair for the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) to question how I had arrived at my calculations and he deserves, and will receive, a serious reply. But when hon. Gentlemen opposite table frivolous Amendments and make no attempt to substantiate the figures contained in them, they must not complain if they receive an answer which, compared with this Amendment and the way it was moved, was charitable.
  The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury has had more experience of local government than I and knows a great deal of the workings of the central government machine. In a matter of this kind a proposal is made and we consider whether it will or will not increase the take-up of improvement grants, and officials are asked to study whether an increase in the number of applications would result from the proposal. They

  1759
  arrived at their calculations by making comparisons of figures. The 1969 Act has not been in force for very long, but they gave the best advice they could, and on that advice, not always united, we tried to form a judgment.
  Much the best answer I can give to the series of questions put by the hon. Gentleman, and to the question to which I should have replied earlier put by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), is that we will gladly, at stated periods, produce figures of take-up between now and June, 1973. I should not like to commit myself to six-monthly, yearly or other intervals. Whatever the period, the House will be able to see whether or not our calculations have been soundly based. This is much the most honourable way of proceeding in the matter, so that we can be judged by our achievement.
  I should like to leave the matter there. I hope that the hon. Member for Willesden, East will not proceed with an Amendment, the need for which he has produced no shred of proof and which he has made very little attempt to justify.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman decides that this is the way to conduct himself in a parliamentary debate. I have been in Parliament for perhaps a shorter time than he, only 15 years, and I have been a Minister for six years, but we all know that Front Bench Amendments can always be divided into two categories. The purpose of back bench Amendments from either side depends on back benchers' own capacities, inclinations, and the like. Amendments tabled by the Front Bench are meant to be voted on as being very sincerely put forward or they are what are called probing Amendments. I had to deal with a series of probing Amendments to the 1969 Measure, and those were withdrawn only after long debate and after I had elicited the facts for the hon. Member concerned. That is all I am asking the Minister to do.
  If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this Amendment is frivolous, meriting a frivolous answer, and intends to behave in this way on the later Amendments, he really is asking for it. This is an agreed Measure. It is a Bill that we all want, though there are items in it that we
  1760
  should like to improve. This is not the way for the Minister to conduct affairs if he wants to get the Bill through the House of Commons.
  I have asked for facts that we do not have. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we are not the Government, although we ought to be. It is the Minister who has the facts. If he does not have them in his head, and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does not have them, they can be obtained elsewhere. We ask for the facts. Were samples taken or not? If they were, may we have the evidence? We want to know. If the Minister will not tell us the facts, I will tell him some of the facts that we have. Although they are not complete, it is on that basis that we are arguing the Amendment.
  Are the Minister's figures correct? We are not just debating the 90 per cent. or 75 per cent. grant to landlords, but a series of Amendments dealing with local authorities and with owner-occupiers. If the Minister treats us so cavalierly on this Amendment, what will our succeeding debates be like?
  The situation in Scotland is very bad, although we are the best of the areas affected by the Bill. In 1964 3,900 private owners got grants. In 1970 the number had risen to 5,800. Everyone will agree that the increase should have been greater than that. Does the Minister intend to treat us frivolously on the later Amendment on this point?
  3.15 p.m.
  Can we have the facts and figures for England and Wales? In the case of private landlord dwellings in Scotland, it is staggering that there was an increase of only 200 in six years. The figure for Scottish local authorities was 890 in 1964 and 17,508 in 1970. These are figures that we have elicited from the Scottish Minister, who is much more responsible when it comes to giving facts. I ask the Minister for Housing Construction to behave in a similarly responsible fashion and give us facts and figures.
  When it comes to making a monetary breakdown, the trouble is that the Bill does affects, not the whole of England, but only parts of England. Any figures that I give are those I have obtained from the Library and other sources and are not necessarily accurate in this context. In

  1761
  a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) the Minister said this:
  "In the 12 months ended 31st March, 1971, standard grants amounting to £7·5 million were paid to private owners. Discretionary grants amounting to £2·6 million were paid for conversions generally. Comparable figures are not available for work done by local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 376.]
  I have obtained from the Library a figure relating to England, but I am not sure if the figure relates to England and Wales. This is why it is so difficult for us. That Written Answer was given on 7th July. We were given from 2nd July to 9th July to prepare for this debate. The Library has given me a figure of a total of £19,150,000, which includes money for environmental and residential areas of £150,000. We must go through the exercise of deducting the two latter items from the first item to get at the figure.
  This is not good enough. I thought that the Minister would at least tell us, "These are the facts about landlorded grants. This is what is happening. This is the general disincentive. Accordingly, we think—we have done a sample in the development areas—that we should raise it, not to 60 per cent., but to 75 per cent. and there is no case for going higher than 75 per cent." That is the argument which I believe would have appealed to us. I may be wrong and that argument might not have gone down well. However, we shall want that answer when it comes to local authorities and owner-occupiers.
  The Minister has run into a major snag in getting this Bill through because of his contemptuous and cavalier attitude. We will not have it. In the interests of the House of Commons I insist that the Minister should seek to reply with facts and figures It is not in my nature to go on in this way, but I do not like the Minister's handling of the Bill.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I am concerned to discover whether this increase to 75 per cent. is an incentive which the Minister believes is necessary to persuade those interested to improve their houses. There has always been a feeling in local government that the £100 grant per house for improving the amenities—the environmental grant—is insufficient. In an area improvement scheme it becomes a much greater problem for local government.
  1762
  Local authorities are to get only 75 per cent. They must provide car parking, open spaces and a whole range of amenities which go well beyond £100 a unit. Local government wishes to know, therefore, whether the improvement from 50 to 75 per cent. represents just an incentive value or a real attempt by the Minister to look at the environmental grant, as he has been asked to do over many months by the local government associations, in order to make a better deal, as it were, for house improvement. Any housing improvement policy depends upon a successful area improvement policy. One is a precursor of the other. He must address himself more clearly to this issue.
  Although I am grateful to the Minister for having been generous in trying to discuss the matter in some detail, we must press him for more information. The figures must be available; they must be part of his thinking. Does the increase from 50 to 75 per cent. represent a straightforward financial incentive? Does it take into account rising costs over the two years, and what sort of projection has been made of rising costs of improvement over the two years? What element of the extra 25 per cent. is sheer financial reward, and how much of it is for providing better environmental services which are an integral part of any housing improvement or area improvement scheme?
  Mr. Freeson: The Minister said that he would take seriously—I thank him for it—the suggestion that there should be publication of the figures broken down broadly on the lines which I suggested, but I was a little disturbed to hear him say—perhaps it was just an off-the-cuff reaction—that he would consider it on a six-monthly, yearly or some other basis. The Bill operates for only two years in terms of work take-up and for three years in terms of expenditure. In these circumstances, it will not be sufficient to provide this sort of information on the basis of six-monthly or yearly returns.
  It should be perfectly feasible to use the quarterly housing statistics for this purpose. The only qualification here—I made it earlier—is that in the very early stages, that is, for the rest of the year and perhaps early next year, it might be found not possible to give

  1763
  quarterly figures because of the need to build up experience. It should certainly be possible, however, to give a set of figures early next year, say, in the February, 1972, housing statistics, and thereafter on the usual quarterly basis one has for other figures.
  If that is not done, there will be inadequate monitoring of an important aspect of policy, although the Ministry has the facilities for doing it. There are the regional offices and there is the collation of information at the centre. I urge that this point be taken seriously along those lines.
  Mr. Amery: Before coming to the debate today, I had asked that the statistics for the development areas should be shown separately, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a built-in statistical difficulty in establishing exactly the effect of the Bill, in that one has to make a theoretical subtraction of the amount of development grant which would have been taken up anyway. So the figures will not prove absolutely the effect of the Bill. We shall try to show as best we can through the percentage increases and so on how far the figures reflect the effect of the Bill. We are still working on that and considering how best to proceed.
  Mr. Freeson: I can well accept that, and the point I was coming to—it is a variation of the point which I made earlier, and it may be helpful to the Minister—is that one might produce the breakdown not just in financial terms but in the number of improvement grants taken up. Although one has to allow for the problem of subtracting different proportions from totals, if one sees in specific areas a marked rise above the 25 per cent. to which the Under-Secretary of State referred on Second Reading a week ago, then, even if one cannot be exact in one's statistics, one can see an effect which could be attributed at least partly, if not wholly, to the impact of the Bill. To the extent that the margins vary, if they are very narrow we can say that the Bill has been of no effect. If there is a tremendous take-up, as the Under-Secretary suggested will be the case, we shall be able to see that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) specific-
  1764
  ally referred to Scotland, which is totally affected by the Bill. Therefore, it is relatively simple to identify the figures there. He has pointed out that current expenditure on improvement grants in Scotland is approaching £2 million, according to figures given in the Scottish Grand Committee. As a result of the Bill we may expect additional expenditure of about £5 milion out of the £46 million. Are we seriouly being told that within a period of less than a year there will be a jump from expenditure approaching £2 million to expenditure of about £6 million, a trebling within the space of a year?
  If the figures I quoted earlier are correct—that the expenditure in 1971 for the whole country is about £22 million—and we expect to have an average of more than £15 million extra, according to the Bill, is the Minister seriously suggesting that within one year there will be a rise from £22 million to £37 million, and more? If so, we are entitled to know the broad assessment that has been made in the Department of the increased number of improvement grants as a result of the Bill. I do not expect the assessment to be exact, because it cannot be. But some calculations must have been made by the Department and in the negotiations with the Treasury before that figure of additional expenditure was approved.
  A number of important points of fact and interpretation are involved. They are important not for the purposes of our probing Amendment, and not solely to understand the impact of the Bill, but for all of us, of every political party and none, who are interested in the effectiveness of housing improvements policy in total. I again urge that the House should be given specific information on those points.
  Mr. Amery: I do not know whether such additional information as I can give is all that helpful, because by its nature it is provisional. Whilst we have made an estimate of £46 million, the most important, and to me the most attractive, feature of the house improvement grants is that they are by their very nature open-ended. They do not stop because they happen to reach a ceiling, because there is no ceiling.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: What does that mean?
  Mr. Amery: If the take-up were to be more than £46 million no stopper would be put on the improvement grants being taken up in the two-year period. They are open-ended in the sense that within the individual limitations there is no limitation on the extent of the take-up. Therefore, the figures are bound to be provisional.
  3.30 p.m.
  I can give a very rough estimate as to how the £46 million will fall out. I will try to give such breakdown as I can. We think that more of the £46 million is likely to fall within 1972–73 than in either of the years before and after—say, £25 million in 1972–73 with perhaps £10 million in each of the preceding and following years. I do not think that that adds very much to the knowledge of the Committee on the subject. The figures are very provisional. We think that the target will be reached. We are prepared to report to the House at regular intervals so that it can judge as time goes on whether the Bill is having the desired effect.
  I remind the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) that this is largely an incentive grant. It is not payment to an exact plan either of houses or of the areas which will benefit. The administration of area improvement depends on the local authority itself. We can only encourage, through our regional offices, as and when the opportunity arises. The take-up of individual grants is partly a matter for individual owners and landlords and partly a matter for the local authorities. But any attempt to calculate this in cash terms is more likely to be misleading than not.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: If this is a rough and ready figure and an open-ended commitment, as opposed to what was suggested earlier today by hon. Members opposite, why is the right hon. Gentleman being so difficult in face of the request by local authorities to make this scheme on approvals rather than on completions, and sticking to the rigid 24-month period rather than using a 48-month period?
  Mr. Amery: I tried to explain our reasons. We chose a two-year period and preferred to do this on improvements rather than completions because
  1766
  we think that this is a better way of getting a head of steam behind the scheme.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman has answered one question in a very helpful way but he has not answered the question specifically asked by this Amendment. He has said that we were spending in Great Britain on these works £22 million in 1970–71. The Bill will add a further £10 million in this financial year. Thus, if this scheme is successful, the Government will be spend-£32 million this year. He admits that this is open ended, as it should be. So it is only an estimate. But next year they will be spending not £32 million but £25 million or so from what is allowed in this Bill; in the second year they will be spending £25 million; and no doubt in the tapering year, when the guillotine comes down—in June, 1973–the balance of approximately £9 million will be taken up.
  The Minister says that because of the open-ended nature of the provision the figures might be bigger. That would be splendid. As Oscar Wilde said, nothing succeeds like excess. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks have been noted by the Treasury, but I am glad of them. But that was not what we were asking about. We asked not about the general picture of working year by year, which he has told us about, or even about his high hopes of doing even better—he has told us that too. What we asked was whether the programme was in balance between one category of grant and another and between one type of person and another.
  We want to know whether local authorities are doing well enough and whether they need additional help, we also want to know whether owner-occupiers are doing well enough. We want to know the situation in regard to private landlord tenement properties and other properties and what will happen to the people who live in those properties.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Assuming the Minister is correct and he can pay more than £46 million, it is unlikely that the Treasury would agree to supplement that money. Therefore, does it not follow that anything in excess of £46 million will come from some other fund in the Department, and will this not mean that money which could have been given to our areas,

  1767
  to be excluded from the Bill, will be taken away to fund such other expenditure in these defined areas?
  Dr. Mabon: I agree with my hon. Friend, and would remind the House that this matter was raised on Second Reading. We were worried that the Amendment would mean that the money which was to be added to would be taken out of the projected five-year expenditure exercise.
  Mr. Amery Mr. Amery indicated dissent.
  Dr. Mabon: The Minister shakes his head. We know that he is a powerful man in the Government, with tremendous influence over the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it may well be that my hon. Friend's fears are groundless. If this is a bonanza and an addition to the projected figures, we have not had the situation made clear. No doubt this will be referred to again on Third Reading. The Minister has said that this is an open-ended commitment larger than £46 million. I thank the Minister for that.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: The Minister said it could be.
  Dr. Mabon: As my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) says, the Minister said it could be more than £46 million. We must be fair to the Minister, even though at times he is unfair to us. The figure could be more and we are glad about that, but that is not the purpose of this debate. And, incidentally, the Minister seems to have lost sight of Amendment No. 16, which is a poor little lamb that has gone astray. It will have to be rescued and brought back into the Bill, and we will discuss that matter too. We want to know the balance of the grant and how the grant is to work on the basis of present performance.
  Perhaps the Minister might have time to look at these matters in the interval between this sitting of the Committee and the next, because it is clear we are not going to get the Bill as fast as we wanted. The Under Secretary of State must accept from me that we want the Bill, but we wish it to be properly discussed. We are not going to be treated with the contempt that seems to be in order today.
  The Minister will have time to go to the Department and to the Scottish Office
  1768
  and to get a breakdown of the facts and figures. It is surely not impossible for the Scottish Office to examine the records of local authorities and others and to give a breakdown of the experience of all the campaigns which have taken place over the last 15 months. We have heard Minister after Minister say that it is his immediate concern to launch a campaign and to stump the country to increase the figures of these improvement grants. I believe that they genuinely want to do this. If they are conducting a publicity campaign about raising the grants why not have a unit in the Department monitoring the rate at which these applications come in?
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Does my hon. Friend recall a Parliamentary Answer recently to the effect that the cost of building a house has risen in the last 12 months by £1,180? If that is true it must follow that that sort of increase must be added to these grants. Prices have risen inordinately under the current inflation. We need something written into the Bill to ensure that this is a genuine £46 million.
  Dr. Mabon: I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made this point on Second Reading. This information is available in the Ministry and the Scottish Office. I know this because the right hon. Gentleman encourages his hon. Friends—and I do not blame him, it is a natural part of original sin in any Minister—to table Questions asking how many improvement grants were agreed in the first four months of this year as compared with the first four months of 1970. Then the right hon. Gentleman gets a supplementary question, congratulating him upon having increased the rate by 8 per cent. in the four comparable months.
  The Minister should be able to look at the figures from October, 1969, to the latest convenient date. He should be able to divide them into different sections and see which of the three sections is not doing well. He should then be able to give additional incentives to that section as opposed to the others. What he has asserted in the Bill is that all sections are the same. If they are will he please define them? Will he give us a breakdown of the figures showing that they

  1769
  are all the same? What more simple answer could there be?
  I do not believe that they are the same. The figures that I was given in the debate on Scottish housing did not suggest that. They are disproportionate. The local authorities are doing more than the owner occupiers and the owner occupiers are doing far more than those who are obliged to live in slums. If that is so there is surely a case for doing something more for one category as opposed to another. The Minister must give us this information. He may be right. My hon. Friends and I are not suggesting that our Amendment is correct, we are asking for information. We are probing the situation just as the Under-Secretary has done many times, to his credit, in the Scottish Grand Committee and elsewhere.
  He received answers in the past from the Department, if not at once then by letter. The Minister may not have the answers today but we would like to have them on succeeding Amendments. We would like him to justify these figures. It is an extraordinary doctrine for a Minister of the Crown to get up and say that the only reason why he should accept an Amendment is that the Opposition can prove the need for it. It is for the Minister to assert that it is right, or to agree that his Bill might be wrong and to take it back or to agree on the spot that the Bill is wrong because the case made against it is so overwhelming. It is not for the Opposition to write the Government's Bills. The Minister is quite wrong to treat us in this way. I ask him to respond to us in this way. If he cannot do it now, because he has not got the facts, then on succeeding Amendments dealing with the 75/90 argument will he give us a breakdown for the whole of Great Britain?
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has asserted a very intresting constitutional doctrine—that no Opposition Amendments should be regarded seriously.
  Dr. Mabon: I did not say that.
  Mr. Amery: Probing Amendments are all right, but they should be presented with a certain gravitas in an attempt to show that there is something serious about
  1770
  them. I have tried to give as much information as I could. Clearly, we shall not complete the Bill today. If there is any additional information which I can give when we meet again, it will be given.
  I regret that we have not made more progress. The people in the development areas will know exactly where the responsibility for it lies. I shall take every opportunity to make it clear that the Labour Party is deliberately holding up the passage of a Bill which could be of great help and bring great encouragement to many people. I do not think that we have fallen down in our duty to give the Committee as much information as possible.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: On a point of order, Capt. Elliot. Is it in order for the Minister to make such an imputation as he has just made? I have tried to represent the views of local government organisations. They wrote to me because the Government refused to discuss the matter with them. I have checked, and that is what I have been told. I tried to represent the views of a vast number of local government organisations. I have attempted to probe the Government in a helpful manner. It is a little much if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to say that I have deliberately thwarted the passage of the Bill. That is a disgraceful suggestion.
  The Temporary Chairman (Captain Walter Elliot): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Freeson: I ask the Minister to reconsider what he has just said. He has not made a helpful contribution to our dscussions. Statements of the kind he has just made do not contribute to the housing improvements campaign, which was initiated not by his party but by the Labour Government. I say that not as a matter of debate but as a matter of historical fact. We have constantly said—and we mean it—that we accept the Bill as far as it goes. But we do not expect to be threatened by that kind of smear remark.
  The Minister has said that he will make it clear wherever he goes that the Opposition have attempted to thwart the progress of the Bill and any attempt through the Bill to assist the development and intermediate areas in dealing with the housing improvements policy. I hope

  1771
  that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line and that he will reconsider his view, because we have tried in Committee and on Second Reading, to seek information in a constructive way. If he has not come prepared to give the detailed answers, which cannot be given on Second Reading but which we are entitled to expect during the Committee stage, the responsibility lies with him.
  No one on this side of the Committee has attempted to suggest that the Minister is misleading the country or the House about his intentions or that he is treating the development and intermediate areas dishonestly or thwarting the policy implicit in the Labour Government's Housing Act, 1969, to which this is a marginally amending piece of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were most regrettable and are in line with the failure to provide the information which was requested. I hope that we shall get a different approach from him in future.
  Let me make one objective fact clear. Whatever the time taken during the proceedings on the Bill, the date of benefit is fixed, and nothing we do to probe the Government's intentions or to change the Bill makes any difference to the situation in the development and intermediate areas. I hope that the Minister will not be so taken with his own anger about being probed on these matters as to make that kind of mistake. The people living in the development and intermediate areas who are following the progress of the Bill, particularly the local authorities, will know the position. Nobody loses by our very careful probing of the legislation, because the Government have, rightly, inserted a date in the Bill. We welcome that. Nobody has queried that we welcome it. Therefore, nobody will suffer as a result of the probing that has taken place in Committee.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I did not intend to take any further part in the proceedings until I heard the last and very unfortunate remarks of the Minister about the alleged attempt of hon. Members on this side of the House to thwart the passage of the Bill. We all know that the Minister has a reputation for an arrogance and a contempt of the democratic processes stretching over a long family history. For him to talk to us
  1772
  about thwarting the will of Parliament is a bit much.
  If we had thought to do that I could have brought along a team of a dozen of my hon. Friends who could have thwarted the Bill until Kingdom come. We need no lessons on ways of thwarting legislation in this House; nor do we need any lectures by that Minister about the needs of development areas, in respect of housing, welfare milk, prescription charges or anything else. We know our problems. We think we know how to solve them. We think that the right hon. Gentleman has no idea how to solve them. So do not let him come here again with that kind of arrogant remark during the passage of the Bill. We know what our people think about the Government. The people of Greenwich have told the Government what they think about them, and other people will get their opportunity in due course.
  Meanwhile, whatever we say this afternoon about the Bill will have nothing whatever to do with delaying its passage. As my hon. Friend has said, the dates are fixed in the Bill. It will be operative from those dates, no matter what we do. All the time that I have listened this afternoon my hon. Friends have simply sought to elicit facts which are known to be in the Department. We had this kind of debate on another major Bill when the Labour Government were in power. We were discussing House of Lords reform. We extracted information which Labour Ministers denied existed in the Department. It is only by the kind of persistence now being shown by hon. Members on this side of the House that that information was finally extracted from the Department.
  That is what my hon. Friends have been doing this afternoon—and it is a perfectly genuine, perfectly good and perfectly acceptable democratic process. For the Minister to make the kind of remark that he made in his last few sentences is simply to invite trouble.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Few Bills have started off with quite so much good will as the Bill presented by the right hon. Gentleman. I can only assume from listening to him this afternoon, and from some of the offensive things that he said in his last few sentences, that he simply thought to himself, "I will take this Bill

  1773
  on Friday. One or two people will dander in, listen for a few minutes, and then dander out again "—as we say in Scotland. But many of us who are concerned about housing are concerned not just to come here to listen for a few seconds and clear off.
  I can speak only for myself, but I think that the points that my hon. Friends have put to the Minister were put courteously. My hon. Friends spoke briefly. I spoke for about six or seven minutes. I made a point that is very much in the mind of my local authority. It has been concerned about it for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) put similar points. I hope that the Minister will withdraw a remark which was offensive not only to hon. Members but to local authorities and local authority associations which have asked us to make these important points to the Minister.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber, but it was necessary to do so because I had to make a telephone call in connection with some important constituency matters.
  I am disturbed, on returning to the Chamber, to be told that the Minister has suggested that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are trying to delay the Bill. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that had I wished to delay the Measure I could have spoken for three times as long as I did. I deliberately kept my speech short because it was our intention to see whether the Minister could get the Bill this afternoon.
  The fact that the Minister has not got the Bill through today is due largely to his own obduracy. I hope he will recognise that, and that when we return to the Bill on a future occasion we shall get the kind of answers that will enable the Bill to go through speedily because, despite its defects, it is a necessary Measure, and we should welcome its becoming law.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: The secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations has written to say:
  "… but I understand that the remaining stages of the Bill in the House of Commons will be taken on Friday 9th July and that there may still be an opportunity of persuading the Government to consider the introduction of amendments to the Bill during its passage. …"
  1774
  I have attempted to raise substantial arguments on behalf of the A.M.C. Local government will not take it kindly that the Government are saying, in effect, that if arguments put forward by local government are raised when the Bill is being considered in committee—and this is necessary because the Government have refused to consult local authorities—that is thwarting the passage of the Bill.
  I do not mind what the Minister says when he goes round the country, because the facts will be known. I shall take steps to make sure that the A.M.C. understands what the Minister has said. The implication of the Minister's statement is that local authorities are going to get short shrift from this Government, and that if they want to raise matters in the House they must consult hon. Members on these benches because, if they seek to get hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise matters for them, the Minister will stop his hon. Friends from asking questions. The only recourse open to those concerned is to consult my hon. Friends, because we are not going to be intimidated by the Minister telling us about the power that he has, or by his telling us that we have thwarted the passage of the Bill. The dates in the Bill are fixed, and whatever we say can make no difference.
  I hope that in the last few minutes available to him the Minister will think it right and proper to rise and withdraw the remarks which I am sure he made in the heat of the moment.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Amendment is in my name, and my choice at this stage is to persist with it and seek to get the answers for which I have asked on four occasions. I have been promised some answers at a later stage. There are other Amendments relating to other matters about which we shall require similar information. I cannot withdraw the Amendment until I know the balance of the figures.
  The Committee will note that Amendment No. 16 is yet another Amendment of a similar kind, put down at the last minute, and I cannot amend it now. It will have to be amended on Report, if that is allowed. I cannot decide what to do, nor can my hon. Friends, until we know the figures involved.

  1775
  I thought that Amendment No. 15 would be regarded as a paving Amendment to enable the Minister to give an answer that would deal with these four Amendments. I have no doubt that had I received the figures for which I had asked I should have been able to withdraw the Amendment and advise my hon. Friends not to persist with the other two, nor seek to alter the Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State. But, in the absence of the figures, I could not possibly advise my hon. Friends to adopt that course. It will be absurd for me to withdraw the Amendment unless the Minister says categorically that the figures for the balance mean that his judgment is right. That is my predicament.
  The Minister has sat there quietly while a succession of hon. Members have chastised him for his concluding remarks, which I am sure he now regrets. He has had five gruelling hours. We all get tired, and no doubt that is why he is in a bad temper, but I suggest that he should now rise and apologise for his intimidating and bullying remarks. He should say that he will make every effort to provide the figures and to deal with the succeeding Amendments, and allow us to table other Amendments at a later stage. That is what I am inviting the Minister to do——
  It being Four o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

HIJACKING BILL
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL
Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Bill to be considered upon Monday next.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [Lords]
Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Bill to be considered upon Monday next.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
Amendments Nos, 1 to 4 made to the Bill.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the consultative document on the Reform of Local Government in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

ARCHWAY (A1 ROAD BRIDGE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
4.4 p.m.
Mr. Michael O'Halloran: I am glad of the opportunity of discussing the Archway Road Bridge, N.19. I have submitted some photographs to the Minister which will explain the difficulties.
The bridge was built in 1897 and under it flows the traffic of the A1 trunk road. Since it was built, it has been known locally as "Suicide Bridge". Practically every year there are one or two suicides and several attempted suicides. Not a week goes by when I do not receive complaints from people living in the vicinity about someone having been seen climbing on the railings of the bridge. When this happens the police are informed and the fire brigade is called to rescue the unfortunate person who feels that there is nothing left in life to live for.
The approach to the bridge is such that the smallest child can climb on to it. I appreciate that if an individual wants to commit suicide there is not much that we can do about it. After all, if he does not jump off Archway Bridge or even Westminster Bridge he can go home and gas himself.
The main problem with the Archway Bridge is that a person attempting suicide can involve the lives of others. From the railings at the top of the bridge to the main trunk road below is a drop of about 80 feet. In the most recent suicide from the bridge a man who jumped narrowly missed falling in front of a bus. It will be seen how the lives of many other people could be involved. The driver of a vehicle passing beneath the bridge in such an eventuality would have to swerve or make an emergency stop, and this could result in a serious accident.
The local weekly newspaper, the Islington Gazette, has over the years spoken out forthrightly about this great hazard. A major question principle is involved because we are left with no option. Either we do something about it or we go back to what has been said all along—that nothing can be done.
1778
In the past three months I have asked a number of Parliamentary Questions about the bridge. I now ask the Minister to do something about it and at least to have a second look at the railings and approach to the bridge. I understand that it would not cost even £5,000 to provide a side wall or additional railings to prevent people from climbing up on it. Many people have suggested the provision of a net to stop would-be suicides from falling in front of traffic below.
This is the question: are we to wait until a very serious accident occurs, with heavy loss of life, or are we to take steps now to prevent such an event? I hope that I have said enough in this short debate to make the Minister appreciate the points I have been putting, both today and in Parliamentary Questions, and that he will have another look at this serious problem.
4.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I wish at the outset to thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) for his courtesy in giving me notice of his views on this matter—though I was aware of them from the Parliamentary Questions which he has asked—and for supplying me with photographs. These photographs highlight the problem. Although I have not seen the bridge, it is obvious from the pictures that it is a very attractive example of a certain type of construction.
The hon. Gentleman was right in pointing out that a bridge at this point was first built in 1812. It was replaced in 1897 by the existing bridge, which has a span of 120 feet and marks the boundary between the section of the A1 for which the Greater London Council is responsible and the trunk road section for which my Department is responsible. The bridge itself is vested in the G.L.C.
The problems that arise from time to time as a result of people attempting to commit suicide or being successful in doing so from this bridge are of great concern to us all. There have been three suicide fatalities in recent years: a man in February, 1969; a girl in October, 1970; and another man in February this year. In addition, in May this year and then on 7th June there were two more attempted suicides, one a mental case

1779
and the other a drug addict. Both were rescued by the police from the bridge and taken to hospital.
Attempts have been made to try to deter people from using the bridge in this way. Some considerable time ago rotating iron spikes were fitted on top of the 5 foot high iron parapet fence, and the height of the parapet with the spikes is a formidable obstacle, as is clear from the photographs. Steel mesh panels have been fitted adjoining the centre and end pillars of the bridge where climbing is easier, again in order to discourage attempts.
It is difficult to devise a wholly effective safeguard which would not detract from the appearance of the bridge, which is of considerable architectural merit. If one were to build a high wall or an unclimbable fence to replace the existing railing, either solution would be considered aesthetically unacceptable.
This is a tragic problem and one that is not restricted to the bridge over this particular roadway. The difficulty is that if people are determined to commit suicide there are an endless variety of ways in which they can do so and a very large number of bridges which they can use—not only road bridges but railway bridges, bridges over the Thames, and others. The danger, therefore, is that if we were to highlight our concern about Archway Bridge in some way it is possible that it would have the reverse effect to that which we seek to achieve.
1780
By focussing attention on this bridge as one that has been used in this way, it is possible that we would even attract more people to use it in this regrettable manner than have used it in the past. As I say, if people have made up their minds to behave in this way, there is nothing we can do to stop them, because there are so many alternative methods open to them.
Nevertheless, I do not want to suggest that our concern is less than that of the hon. Member, particularly because of the danger—albeit, I hope, a small one, and one that has not so far led to any actual danger—of people jumping from the bridge, landing in the roadway below and possibly causing an accident, perhaps injuring people in no way otherwise involved.
I say at once that although the difficulties are well known, and that is why we have not been able to make further progress, we will discuss the matter with the G.L.C. to see whether anything can be done within the limits I have mentioned to minimise the problem. I very much wish that there were no such dangers but, as I have said, there will always be a proportion of people who are, regrettably, determined to commit suicide and it is impossible to anticipate every means they may use for their purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Four o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Industrial Civil Service (Pay Structure)
  Industrial Civil Service (Pay Structure)
EDUCATION
  Authors (Public Lending Rights)
  Authors (Public Lending Rights)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Educational Priorty Areas
  Educational Priorty Areas
  Teachers (Mathematics and Science)
  Teachers (Mathematics and Science)
  EMPLOYMENT
    Statistics
    Statistics
ENVIRONMENT
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Rates, Rents and Council House Building Costs
  Rates, Rents and Council House Building Costs
  Central Housing Advisory Committee
  Central Housing Advisory Committee
  Departmental Committees
  Departmental Committees
  Option Mortgage Guarantee Scheme
  Option Mortgage Guarantee Scheme
  Disused Railway Tracks (Bridleways)
  Disused Railway Tracks (Bridleways)
  Affected Property (Compensation)
  Affected Property (Compensation)
  Yorkshire and Humberside Planning Council
  Yorkshire and Humberside Planning Council
  Research Agencies
  Research Agencies
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Botswana (Rhodesian Africans)
    Botswana (Rhodesian Africans)
  India and East Pakistan Border (Security Council Action)
  India and East Pakistan Border (Security Council Action)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Anniversary Celebration)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Anniversary Celebration)
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    European Economic Community
    European Economic Community
  Commonwealth Citizens (Refusal of Admission)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Refusal of Admission)
  Defendants (Costs Awards)
  Defendants (Costs Awards)
  Tanzanian Travellers (Refusal of Entry)
  Tanzanian Travellers (Refusal of Entry)
  SCOTLAND
    Trials (Delay)
    Trials (Delay)
  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
    Postal Charges and Licence Fees
    Postal Charges and Licence Fees
  SOCIAL SERVICES
    Prescriptions
    Prescriptions
  Family Income Supplement Act
  Family Income Supplement Act
  Inoculation and Vaccination of Children
  Inoculation and Vaccination of Children
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    Dan-Air Comet Accident, Barcelona
    Dan-Air Comet Accident, Barcelona
  Incomes, Taxation and Charges
  Incomes, Taxation and Charges
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Australia (United Kingdom Exports)
  Australia (United Kingdom Exports)
  Leeds/Bradford Airport
  Leeds/Bradford Airport
DEFENCE
  Royal Naval Aircraft Yard, Belfast
  Royal Naval Aircraft Yard, Belfast

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

RHODESIAN AFRICAN REFUGEES IN BOTSWANA
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 on what grounds 21 Rhodesian African refugee's in Botswana have been denied protection by the British High Commissioner before being handed over to the police of the illegitimate administration of Rhodesia.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place on July 8, the Botswana authorities found no grounds for treating the men as political refugees and gave them notice to leave Botswana. Nineteen of the men applied at the British High Commission in Gaborone for political asylum in the United Kingdom, but failed to make out a case. The men were not handed over to the police in Rhodesia.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him, first, whether Botswana is not in a difficult position geographically because of its dependence on South Africa? Secondly, is there not another issue here? Is it not the case that the Geneva Agreement applying to refugees requires that a refugee should be helped if in the country of his origin
1206
he is liable to persecution? In this case, they being British subjects, there would be no persecution in this country, and we should have no control over the persecution in Rhodesia.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lords' first supplementary question, I take his point about the geographical situation of Botswana, but I do not think that in this case it would affect the consideration. It is also perfectly true that the acceptance or non-acceptance of political refugees depends upon whether they are in danger of persecution in the country of origin. Each one of these cases was looked into carefully by the British High Commission, and this took a considerable time. Our advice, as a result of this careful consideration, was that the 19 men referred to did not make out a case for acceptance as political refugees.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Marquess suggest that the Government regard Rhodesia, at one and the same time, as a friendly State and a rebel State?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that is a very different question. All I am trying to answer is whether or not these men made out a case for political asylum. Neither the Botswana authorities, nor the British High Commission in Gaborone afterwards, felt that they had.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Marquess referred to "nineteen of the men". What about the other two: did they make out a case as being political refugees? Would Her Majesty's Government look at this loophole in the Geneva Agreement which applies to the exceptional situation in Rhodesia, and see whether that loophole can be filled?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said in that regard. I am afraid that I have no information about the other two men. The 19, of course, were the 19 who approached the British High Commission.

SAGGITTAIR: USE OF ARGOSY AIRCRAFT
11.10 a.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: 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 Saggittair, Ltd., hold an air operator's certificate valid for Argosy aircraft.]
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords.

FUTURE BUSINESS: E.E.C. AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I inform you that it is proposed to hold the debate on the White Paper on the Common Market in the week beginning Monday, July 26. The debate will begin on that day, and will continue for two or three days according to the number of your Lordships who wish to take part in the debate. It would therefore greatly facilitate the orderly arrangement of business if your Lordships would indicate to the Government Whips' Office as soon as possible should you intend to speak.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure it is for the general convenience of the House to have notice of this arrangement, and I thank the noble Earl.

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
11.12 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HA ILSI IAM On ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, in rising to propose, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the House do discharge the Order of Recommitment, I ought to inform the House that this is a pure Consolidation Bill and, as such, falls within the first category of Bills referred to the Joint Committee. In their Report the Committee state that the Bill represents the existing law and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I understand that no Amendments have been put down to this Bill, and that
1208
no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a Manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee on recommitment. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), "That the Order of Recommitment be discharged". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid the speech I am about to deliver bears an uncanny resemblance to the one which I delivered less than two minutes ago, but the Standing Orders require me to make it, so I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. Before the House decides to discharge the Order of Recommitment, if it so pleases, I should inform your Lordships that this also is a pure Consolidation Bill, falling within the first category of Bills referred to the Consolidation Committee, and in their Report the Joint Committee state that the Bill represents the existing law and there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to submit a Manuscript Amendment or to speak on Recommitment. Unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES) BILL [H.L.]
11.15 a.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. For some years many people have been aware of the social

1209
problems in our country which must be associated with the immigration of people with different religious and cultural backgrounds. Now it would seem that the law relating to polygamous marriages is a field where reform is needed. I should have been reluctant to venture into this specialised field of law without the support of the Law Commission, and the Law Commission have made an exhaustive examination over a number of years into this matter. They have further assisted me by drafting a Bill which is the basis of the measure now before the House.
It is over a century ago since the case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansey established the basic principle of English law concerning polygamous marriages; namely, that neither party to such a marriage is entitled to matrimonial relief. The husband in that case had been a party to a Mormon marriage and in his summing up, the Judge, Lord Penzance, said this:
" This Court does not profess to decide upon the right of succession or legitimacy which it might be proper to accord to the issue of the polygamous unions nor upon the rules or obligations in relation to third persons which people living under the sanction of such unions may have created for themselves. All that is intended to be here decided is that as between each other they are not entitled to the remedies, the adjudication or the relief of the matrimonial law of England."
Over the years a body of law concerning polygamous marriages has developed, and it is now established that a marriage is monogamous or polygamous according to the law of the place of celebration and not the law of either party's domicile. In effect, this means that if an Englishman or woman goes through a polygamous marriage ceremony in a country where polygamy is lawful, he or she contracts a polygamous marriage though the marriage is not valid in England. On the other hand, if a Moslem domiciled in India or Pakistan contracts a marriage in an English register office, that is treated as a monogamous marriage.
Some monogamous countries may recognise the first marriage of a polygamous union for purposes of matrimonial relief, whereas the later ones are not so recognised. But in England there is no such distinction. Neither a potentially polygamous marriage nor an actually polygamous marriage is recognised for the purpose of matrimonial
1210
relief. However, a potentially polygamous marriage where there is only one wife may become monogamous and English matrimonial relief may become available. For instance, the parties in an Eastern country may change their religion from one which permits polygamy to one which does not, or, if the husband changes his domicile from a country which permits polygamy to one whose law does not, then of course the matrimonial relief will be available. If a husband's personal law does not permit him to take more than one wife but does permit him to take concubines with a recognised status in law, then a marriage celebrated under such a law is polygamous.
On the other hand, a marriage may be monogamous although neither party is a Christian. The crucial question is whether the law under which the marriage is celebrated permits polygamy; if it does not the marriage is monogamous. A fundamental change was made in the case of Ali v. Ali in 1968 when it was established that a potentally polygamous marriage may become a monogamous marriage in English law if the parties acquire an English domicile. The rule in Hyde v. Hyde which denies matrimonial relief to either party to a polygamous marriage applies to the proceedings set out in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill and includes a decree of divorce, nullity of marriage, judicial separation, presumption of death, dissolution of marriage and wilful neglect to maintain.
Now although English courts refuse to exercise nullity jurisdiction in respect of a polygamous marriage entered into abroad by persons who are now domiciled in England, the parties are regarded as not married and are therefore free under English law to remarry. The hardship lies in the impossibility of obtaining any financial provision. If a couple have married abroad in polygamous form, and revert to an English domicile, then provided that there is only one wife the marriage is converted into a monogamous marriage when the full range of matrimonial relief will he available. If they do not acquire English domicile the marriage remains polygamous, and even if there is only one wife no matrimonial relief is available to either Party. If there is more than one wife, then whether or not the parties acquire an English domicle the marriage remains polygamous

1211
and no matrimonial relief is available to either party.
It seems to me that the party to a polygamous marriage in this country who suffers the greatest hardship is the wife and the children who are denied mainteance. Of course in these circumstances we in this country do not allow a woman and her children to starve. They are supported by the taxpayer, through social security. The case of Iman Din v. National Assistance Board established the right of the authority to take action against this man who, in 1961, came to England with his second wife, and subsequently abandoned her and her four children leaving them destitute.
The curious result is that a wife is denied direct maintenance from her husband, even if the marriage is only potentially polygamous, but he can be made liable if the circuitous and administratively expensive route of supplementary benefits is used. Perhaps the case of Sawa v. Sawa illustrates the gross injustice of the present position. The parties were domiciled in Ghana and contracted a polygamous marriage. The husband never took a second wife and promised on the Bible to convert the marriage into a Christian one, which is permitted under the law of Ghana, but failed to do so. The parties came to England in search of employment. The wife had a baby. Her application to a magistrates' court for an affiliation order was adjourned when the defence was put forward that she was not a single woman. Her subsequent application for maintenance was granted, but the decision of the magistrates was reversed by the Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal, because the marriage was potentially polygamous. The judges in the Divisional Court said that they reached their decision with deep regret. In the Appeal Court Lord Justice Pearce said:
" The husband has behaved so badly that I fully share the regrets expressed by the Divisional Court at finding itself unable to uphold the magistrates' order."
My Lords, should we continue to permit the law to hamper humane judges from administering what they in their learned opinion consider elementary justice? That is what is happening in our law courts today.
I should also remind your Lordships that the Islamic law, as well as permitting
1212
polygamy, allows the husband to divorce his wife unilaterally, and extra-judicially, by a declaration known as Talak, and it is now established, despite an earlier decision to the contrary, that English courts will recognise Talak provided it can be proved that the divorce is effective in the country of domicile. Despite reforms in some Moslem countries which restrict the husband's right to divorce by Talak, and which enable the wife to obtain a judicial divorce, there remain countries where the husband's right to unilateral divorce by Talak is not matched by an equivalent right on the part of the wife. It seems grossly unjust for parties who reside in England that a husband can obtain a divorce here, while the wife is debarred from seeking a divorce, and from any other matrimonial relief before the English courts. Various interested organisations seek to encourage immigrants to conform to English standards of behaviour, and it would seem to me that parties to polygamous marriages are more likely to conform if English law imposes on them, so far as is practicable, the same family rights and obligations as are imposed on other married people.
The denial of matrimonial relief not only permits parties to escape from their obligations, lawfully entered into under another legal system, but tends to perpetuate the polygamous situation because the marriage cannot be ended. The Law Commission examined the position regarding divorce, and the majority concluded that the parties to polygamous marriages should be entitled to petition for divorce and that the rule in Hyde v. Hyde should be abolished. On the question of the presumption of death, the Law Commission recommended unanimously that this right should be given to a party to a polygamous marriage. The majority also made the same recommendation for judicial separation as for divorce, and for the right to petition for a decree of nullity. And, furthermore, to apply for maintenance in the High Court, or county court, or for a maintenance, separation or custody order in the magistrates' court on any ground set out in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Court) Act 1960, Section 1.
Again it should be recognised that a person who is polygamously married is

1213
not capable of contracting a valid marriage in England, and while this is independent of the question of matrimonial relief, it is advisable that the children of a potentially, or actually polygamous marriage, will be regarded as legitimate, and that the widow and children will be entitled to rights of succession. At present, no application can be made under Section 39 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 for a declaration that a polygamous marriage is valid. In order that such questions can be resolved, the Law Commission recommend that the fact that the marriage is polygamous should not be a bar to proceedings under Section 39 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, or under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 15, Rule 16.
My Lords, that is the case. No doubt some of you have been asking yourselves what has been happening in other countries. Of course this problem has been faced by other countries which have a number of immigrants. They have found it necessary to find a solution to the social problems stemming from the practice of polygamy. In Australia either party to a polygamous marriage may apply for maintenance in the magistrates' court. Other matrimonial relief, including divorce, is available in respect of a polygamous marriage if neither party was married to another person at the time of the marriage in question. New Zealand allows spouses to apply for maintenance in circumstances similar to those in which matrimonial relief is obtainable in Australia.
Of course, the word "polygamy" in this country attracts attention not only of legal organisations but of the women's organisations. I fully realise that many people must wonder whether a measure of this kind will increase the number of polygamous marriages. I hope I have convinced your Lordships that, on the contrary, the reverse will be the case. I am very glad that many women's organisations are considering this question, and a number have already expressed their sympathy. The Married Women's Association and the Six-Point Group both had special meetings on this subject. Both of these organisations have already written in saying they unanimously approve.
1214
So may I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a worthwhile social reform which applies to England and Wales. It extends the protection of English matrimonial law to all married persons within the jurisdiction of the English courts regardless of their national origin or personal law. Its principal effect will probably be to enable the wife of a polygamous union to obtain maintenance from her husband instead of becoming dependent on the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I hope that your Lordships will support the Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Summers-kill.)
11.32 a.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for the clear way in which she has explained to us this Bill on this rather recondite subject. I know that we have a lot of important public business to get through today and it is not my intention therefore to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, particularly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is such a great authority in this branch of our law, is far better able than I shall be to answer any questions which may arise.
I want therefore to emphasise only two points. The first is this. I hope that the House will give a welcome to this Bill. It is a Bill which arose after the Law Commission had been asked to consider this subject. They sent out, as usual, a very large working paper to everybody who it was felt had anything relevant to contribute to this subject. It was only after considering all the views which had been expressed that they then published this long and interesting Report with a draft Bill attached. Apart from one Commissioner who dissented on one point, on which point I respectfully agree with the majority, and which has been embodied in the Bill, it is otherwise a unanimous Report and it is not therefore, of course, in any way whatever Party political.
The other point which I should like to emphasise is this—and I raise it, frankly, largely because, as all those who have had anything to do with the Press know, it not infrequently happens that a

1215
reporter makes a good report of some matter and then a sub-editor who determines the headlines adds a headline which serves only to misrepresent rather than to represent what is in the body of the report. This is the kind of subject in which one might be likely to get a headline which was less than accurate. Therefore, I should like to emphasise, as my noble friend has, that there is certainly nothing in the Bill to encourage polygamous marriages. The position, if I have understood it rightly, is this. For a long time all our courts, except one, have decided, whenever it was necessary to decide it, whether a polygamous marriage is valid under our law or not. It may be that if two nationals of a country domiciled in that country which admits of polygamous marriages go through a proper ceremony of marriage, we recognise its validity. On the other hand, if an Englishman goes to a country which admits of polygamy and enters into a polygamous marriage while he is domiciled here, that in our law would be invalid, just as any marriage which is celebrated in this country can only be a monogamous marriage.
So in whatever kind of court, except one, it has arisen, if the question in a criminal case arises, as it may, "Is this woman in the witness box the lawful wife of the accused?", we decide it. If a husband dies leaving property in this country we may have to decide who is his lawful wife or wives, who are his legitimate children. But in consequence of a decision in 1866, there is one court and one court only whose doors are closed in this field altogether, and that is the matrimonial court. That is really the result of Hyde v. Hyde: that the doors of our matrimonial courts are closed. It is only our matrimonial courts which are prevented from deciding whether such a marriage is valid, whether it is invalid—they cannot grant a decree of nullity; they cannot make declaration; they cannot grant maintenance. The result of that, now that we have a certain number of people in this country who have gone through an actually polygamous or a potentially polygamous marriage, is that the hardship is caused to the women and children. If the husband deserts the woman she cannot get maintenance; the taxpayer has to
1216
provide. If a question arises as to what in the best interests of the children ought to happen to the children, our matrimonial courts are again powerless to say or do anything.
This is not in one sense a large problem from the point of view of numbers. The Law Commission say in paragraph 4 of their Report:
" The law relating to polygamous marriages is a field where reform is clearly needed, for the present position regarding financial provision is particularly disturbing. It should be emphasised, however, that this need for reform is not caused by the presence in this country of any significant number of husbands with several wives here. Such cases are rare. There are, however, a number of cases where, because the marriage was celebrated abroad in Islamic or customary law form, it is potentially polygamous though the husband has in fact only one wife. There are also cases of actual polygamy where the husband has one wife in England and one or more wives in his country of origin."
So what I should like to emphasise is that this Bill gives no encouragement to polygamous marriages at all, and, as the Law Commission say in the penultimate paragraph of their Report:
" We would again emphasise that the main effect of these recommendations is merely to overcome the present anomalies resulting from the fact that polygamous marriages celebrated abroad between persons domiciled abroad are recognised here for those purposes but are at present treated as creating an indissoluble union without enforceable obligations of mutual support ".
And as they say in their explanatory notes to Clause 1:
" There is nothing in the Bill which affects the validity or invalidity of any particular polygamous marriage. This question would, as now, fall to be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law concerning the recognition and validity of foreign marriages. A marriage celebrated in England can never be a valid polygamous marriage, nor can a person domiciled in England enter into a polygamous marriage which would be recognised as valid in England."
" The Bill does not confer on parties to polygamous marriages any greater right to matrimonial relief than that enjoyed by parties to monogamous marriages, whether celebrated in England or abroad. A party applying for relief will have to satisfy all the other conditions which apply for example, requirements as to domicile or residence."
But, it will mean that for the first time in a hundred years the doors of the matrimonial courts will be open, as the doors of our other courts are open, to do what is right and according to the law: that is to say, in the field of divorce, judicial

1217
separation, presumption of death, dissolution of marriage and nullity. If the marriage is invalid, there is no reason why either party should not obtain a decree of nullity and, of course, in particular, as to maintenance and custody of the children. I have said that only because I thought there might be some misconception arising from the nature of the subject matter, and that someone reporting our proceedings might think that there was something in this Bill which either altered the basis on which we recognise as valid or do not recognise as invalid polygamous marriages. It leaves that exactly the same. All it does is to open to such parties the doors of our matrimonial courts.
11.42 a.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: Lords, it is with some trepidation that I speak briefly to-day, because this is a matter for those with expert legal knowledge which I do not possess; but, as I have the privilege of sitting on this Bench, I felt that I should say a word about it in support of the Bill, although I hasten to add that I speak in a private personal capacity and I am in no sense able to commit my fellow Members on this Bench. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for what he said just now about a possible headline in the Press, because such a headline as, "Bishop says Polygamy is a Good Thing" would be one which might add considerably to my postbag in the next week or two. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for bringing the Bill forward, because I am sure that this is a subject which needs dealing with. It is a problem which is going to grow. I myself have had several dealings, trying to help them pastorally, with girls who were proposing to enter into marriages which were potentially polygamous. Sometimes I do not think either they or their parents realised the full implications of the step they were taking. In many of these cases, as we know, matters work out happily and all is well, but sometimes things can go wrong. Those are the times when I think the law ought to be altered in order that we may give the assistance of which the noble Baroness has been speaking.
I must emphasise again that I speak only because I am certain that this Bill is not meant in any way to open the door
1218
to polygamy in England. It explicitly limits the matter to marriages entered into under a law which permits polygamy. We should all agree that if the law is altered it must not be done in such a way as to encourage the practice of polygamy in this country. We should all, I am sure, want to maintain marriage in this country as understood in Christendom, namely, as a voluntary union between one man and one woman. Having said that, I feel that this Bill will be helpful, because it seems to me that, so far as is consistent with English public policy, family relationships validly created under a foreign system of law should be recognised here. Secondly, it is undesirable that people should be regarded for some purposes as married and for other purposes as not married. It seems to me that this is the situation in regard to polygamous and potentially polygamous marriages in England today. As the noble Baroness stressed, the interests of the taxpayer in England should not be lost sight of. At present, as she explained, a man cannot be compelled by the courts to maintain his wife of a polygamous or potentially polygamous union but can leave her as a charge on the social security provisions.
My Lords, it is my humble opinion that on general grounds, mainly affecting the welfare of the woman concerned and in common justice, the intention of the Bill is surely acceptable to the Christian conscience. One of our Bishops who worked overseas for many years and has great experience in these very difficult matters because of cases with which he has had to deal, is of the opinion that a change in the law in order to allow divorce from polygamous marriage should be encouraged but that any such concessions should apply only to those who have married polygamously in a country where this is according to the law. The contracting of a polygamous marriage here should always be opposed. Also, no financial benefits should be allowed for or on behalf of more than one wife. This restriction already applies in certain countries overseas where polygamy is lawful.
That being the case, I feel that the time has now come for this Bill to be brought forward, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for so doing. I believe it strikes at a real social injustice. As I have said,

1219
it is an injustice which is likely to increase. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, at the moment the numbers are comparatively small, but I do not think we can rest content with that, for they may well grow. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her action in bringing forward this Bill to-day and I am glad to be able to give it my support.
11.48 a.m.
LORD SIMON or GLAISDALE: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on introducing this Bill and on her speech of introduction. Indeed, my only feeling of regret was that a natural lawyer has been lost to medicine. The noble Baroness brings a unique social experience—personal, professional, Parliamentary and Ministerial, to this subject. It seems to me that that social instinct has brought her absolutely to the correct conclusion in introducing the Bill and in emphasising, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, did, that it is a Bill which in no way encourages polygamy. No polygamous marriage could be entered into in this country under the provisions of this Bill. All that the Bill does is to say that those who are already, by their own laws, polygamously married shall not be denied the reliefs of the English law. That seems to me entirely just.
The origin, as the noble Baroness pointed out, was the decision about a hundred years ago in the case of Hyde v. Hyde. That was almost certainly an incorrect decision, even at the time, on its facts. That was a time when the Lord Chancellor in lolanthe could say:
" The Law is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, And I, my lords, embody the Law."
Of course, the Lord Chancellor still embodies the law, and is personally the embodiment of everything that is excellent, but we are no longer so starry-eyed about the law itself; and the law as laid down in Hyde v. Hyde has proved increasingly unsatisfactory. It did not matter so very much at the time; it matters a great deal today, when one gets widespread inter-penetration of ethnic groups, some of whose social customs recognise polygamy. It means that nowadays one can get, as in one case mentioned
1220
by the noble Baroness, persons married under a system which admits polygamy, coming to this country, no further wife being taken, the wife being abandoned or treated with cruelty and yet the English court precluded from giving any relief. That seems to me to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. It is particularly unjust in the case of the maintenance of wives in comparatively humble circumstances who are denied the relief of the courts of summary matrimonial jurisdiction.
The judges, as so often, have tried to mitigate the hardship and injustice in various ways. For example, they have recognised a second ceremony in this country w giving them jurisdiction. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they have held that where a domicile is acquired in this country it automatically converts a marriage potentially polygamous into a monogamous marriage. Some of those expedients, although they have mitigated hardship, are not entirely satisfactory juridically; and to adopt again an expression of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have quoted before, anything that erodes the comprehensive rationality of the law is to be deprecated.
I am convinced that the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness is a far better and more comprehensive way of dealing with what is now a real social problem. I do not personally believe that there is any difficulty in the working of the Bill. I am convinced that the courts can make it work. We ought to recognise that English matrimonial courts already deal with many of the problems of polygamous marriages, in the sense that by our law of divorce there may be a succession of wives, or former wives, whose rights have to be considered by the courts. I cannot therefore agree, although I have the highest respect for him, with the dissent of Mr. Justice Lawson, as he now is. I think this Bill really makes no inroad on any matter of principle of English law: it merely provides better machinery. Therefore I personally welcome the Bill.
11.54 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at the risk of detaining your Lordships a little, I think it is probably appropriate that I should speak, as shortly

1221
as I can, about this Bill. Some time ago I suggested in this House that it would be helpful if someone were to air this subject, and for that reason I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for taking me at my word; and I should like to add my own congratulations to her on the lucid and accurate exposition of the problem which she gave to the House in her opening speech.
The introduction of this measure is all the more valuable because it takes place against the background of the positive recommendations of the Law Commission and not simply in the abstract. We have an actual Bill to discuss. There is of course no chance of this Bill getting through this Session, and I think the noble Baroness realises that. But I think the debate which we have had, short as it has been, opens the way to a Private Member's Bill, either in this House or another place, having a reasonable chance of success next Session. Although I cannot bind my colleagues on this, I personally would welcome such a step. On questions such as these, of course, Governments are more than usually dependent on Parliamentary and public opinion; Party Whips have virtually no meaning. Yet we are faced here with a social question, and the total impact on the sum of human happiness can be quite considerable if the questions are not honestly faced in Parliament; and a Private Member's Bill is one of the easiest and most valuable ways whereby this can happen.
As the noble Baroness said, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, reminded us, the Law Commission itself was divided on at least one of the issues. Mr. Justice Lawson (as he now is) dissented on the question of marriages actually polygamous, although on the question of ancillary relief the Report was unanimous and also, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out, on certain other questions of substantive jurisdiction.
I thought that it might be useful—although as I so largely agree with what has been said it has become rather less useful than it would otherwise have been—if I indicated my own train of thought about this question. I confess quite honestly that I began with a strong antipathy to meddling with marriages, either actually
1222
or potentially polygamous. Partly this was a result of my conviction (which I have not altered) that such marriages are basically inconsistent with a free and civilised society, and my observation of the fact—and it is a fact—that even societies in which polygamy is accepted in theory are quite perceptibly moving in practice towards a system of monogamy; and even in such societies polygamy, where it continues to exist at all, is often regarded as being exceptional and not wholly respectable.
But I had another and more sophisticated reason for my starting point. I doubted, and it seems to me that in his dissenting view Mr. Justice Lawson still doubts, whether it was possible in real life to take a graft, as it were, from institutions of monogamous society and then make them live as a graft on marriages which were naturally polygamous in fact. In some respects at the time when I held this view I think I was clearly right. For instance, the question of adultery must differ in its impact where there are, or can be, two wives, or indeed more. The status of children must clearly differ when a little girl of three and a little girl of three-and-a-half have different mothers both living with the same husband. Maintenance and alimony are clearly matter; which are different when the law allows two or more wives at the same time. So I began by thinking that the common law had something to be said for it, and the common law, if it was rightly decided, allowed no jurisdiction in the English courts to handle polygamous marriages in their matrimonial jurisdiction.
But I am quite clear, my Lords, that my original viewpoint was wrong, and wrong for a number of reasons. In the first place, with the passage of the legislation of 1969 our civil law of marriage has undergone a change much more fundamental and much more organic than we have yet recognised, and I think the change has radically altered our approach to' this particular subject. We may welcome that legislation of 1969 or we may not, but the change has to be recognised.
But whether I am right about that or not, it must be that we have to deal with actual concrete situations when men and women live in this country who have in

1223
fact contracted unions under a system of matrimonial law that differs in various ways from our own. When the "wife" of such a union is deserted or treated cruelly, is she to be denied an order for maintenance or an order for custody? Where the children of such a marriage are left behind, are we not to allow the same access to the courts as we do to the children of any other marriage? Is a cruelly treated "wife" to be denied the opportunity to make a second marriage? If so, she has all the disadvantages but not all the rights of an unmarried mother.
My Lords, these are questions that we have to answer, because the situations actually occur. If we give no answer, our very silence means that we are giving an unfavourable answer. And even if we regard our interests as taxpayers it does seem odd, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, to leave a polygamous husband free, while the wife and his children are on supplementary benefit—although the taxpayer can then proceed to condemn a monogamous husband to contribute directly to his children's support. For a long time I thought it would be enough if we dealt with marriages potentially polygamous but left actually polygamous marriages alone, or if we dealt only with ancillary relief in such cases—maintenance and custody, for instance—but refused to touch the status of such a marriage. This was virtually the view expressed in the Law Commission Report by the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Lawson. But on reflection I have abandoned this view, too. It certainly would be an odd thing if only polygamous marriages remained indissoluble in English law, however cruelly or badly the wife was treated. It would be, I would think, an odd thing if the only "wife" who could not get her so-called freedom was the wife who by Christian standards had never been a wife at all.
But, I ask, can the English system of divorce be adapted to meeet this new, and unwished, addition? This was the point at which Mr. Justice Lawson stuck. Since the 1969 law, I reply, why not? If the test of dissolution be irreparable breakdown, why should not this, mutatis mutandis, be the test also for potentially or actually polygamous marriages?
1224
Like the noble and learned Lord, whose speech I was glad to have in confirmation, I do not believe that these problems are impossible in principle. They may be difficult, but they are not insoluble, and I believe they are soluble on the basis of the present law.
There are things, as several speakers have pointed out, which a law of this kind both could not and should not attempt to do. I, like others, would hope that no one would believe it possible that a law of this kind could make possible, or likely, the introduction of polygamous marriage here. As I say, I consider, and I have no doubt that all noble Lords consider, such unions inconsistent with the maintenance of a free society. Nor do I believe that the acceptance of a duty to deal with the factors arising out of the status quo will do anything to encourage the formation of polygamous unions abroad.
One point of a rather pedantic character must be emphasised. The law of England is not the same as the law of Scotland. I understand that the Scottish Law Commission are now considering the question. It is obviously better, though not so obviously essential, that we await their deliberations before legislating in England. As I say, the Government have not adopted a concluded position on this. Nor, I must emphasise, have I, except in a purely personal capacity. I personally hope that a law of this kind and in these terms will find its way to the Statute Book fairly soon, and I certainly should like to see it on the Statute Book before the end of next Session.
12.17 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, it is customary at this stage of the proceedings for the promoter of a Private Member's Bill to endeavour to answer the questions. I am in the very happy position of realising that only one question was put to me, and it has already been answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It was put by the right reverend Prelate, who asked whether this Bill could in any way increase polygamous marriages. The fact is, and I would repeat it again, that it is quite impossible in this country to have a polygamous marriage which is a valid marriage.
I should now like to thank, in the first place, the noble and learned Lord

1225
the Lord Chancellor for having changed his mind. All big men, he knows, and women, I hope, are big enough to be able to confess when they have changed their mind, and it was delightful to hear him this morning. He, of course, encouraged me in the first place, in a rather oblique way, to introduce this Bill, and in his peroration just now he hoped that the Bill would get on to the Statute Book very soon. I take that also as encouragement from a very high place, and I thank him. May I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who of course has a very warm spot for this kind of law, and for women. Knowing that he was going to be here today, I felt confident that there would be somebody there who would give me a hand.
May I turn now to my old friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who until very recently was President of the Divorce Division and is therefore an acknowledged authority on this subject. He and I have fought before on different sides of the House, but we have a kind of union of minds and when he said just now that he wished I might have gone in for the law it occurred to me that I have to confess that I have done so much reading and research on this question that I am really ready to sit an examination in this field any moment. May I again thank him for coming here this morning, instead of going up to Yorkshire very early, and for giving me that support which I have already experienced in the past and to which I look forward in the future? My Lords, I thank you very much for your reception of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
12.7 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope that by moving the Second Reading of this Bill I shall do nothing to upset the atmosphere of the love feast which I have just witnessed. I do not think I need dwell at any great length on the background. Two years ago the Edwards Committee made three main recommendations for the future of British
1226
civil aviation. It recommended, first, the creation of a "Second Force" airline to strengthen and develop the independent sector of the industry. Secondly, it recommended the establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority, so as to bring together as far as possible in a single body all aspects of the regulation of the industry. And thirdly, it recommended the setting up of another new body, the British Airways Board, to exercise strategic control over the two Air Corporations and their subsidaries on the lines of a holding company in the private sector. All three of these recommendations were welcomed in the last Administration's White Paper of November, 1969. The first has now been realised by the formation of Caledonian/British United Airways, and the purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the second and third.
Although certain differences of view have been expressed on some aspects of these matters, I believe that there is a broad underlying consensus as to the purposes of the present Bill. Indeed, I am encouraged in this belief by some observations that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in this House some months ago. That is not to say, however, that there are not important issues to be discussed, some of them going to the heart of the Bill. I thought that in what I have to say it would perhaps be more helpful if I concentrated on these, rather than on trying to summarise or embellish the Explanatory Memorandum or financial provisions.
Perhaps the most important and difficult of these central issues, which runs as a theme throughout this Bill, is the question of achieving the right balance between independence and control. Here we are, setting up two important new bodies. How far can they be left to get on with the jobs which we are giving them? Taking the Authority first, there are some who think it should be totally independent, but I really do not think that could be accepted. One has to be realistic: only the Government in Parliament can decide policy and determine national priorities. This, indeed, is the concept put forward by the Edwards Committee, which I believe we all accept, of an Authority which has the widest possible discretion in reaching its particular decisions for the regulation of the industry, but which acts within the framework

1227
of policies laid down by the Government and approved by Parliament.
The Bill gives effect to this concept by establishing the Authority as an independent corporation which is neither the servant nor the agent of the Crown, and by providing in Clause 3 for the Authority to act in the manner which it considers is best calculated to achieve the objectives set out in subsection (1) and to accord with the guidance to be given from time to time, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution, under subsections (2) and (3). Inevitably, however, as the Edwards Committee itself recognised, the purity of this proposition has to be qualified in practice. There are the difficult questions of directions, appeals and regulations, for which provision must be made. The Bill provides for two sorts of directions to be given by the Secretary of State to the Authority: those which may affect its regulatory decisions and those concerned with matters of housekeeping. It is especially the first kind of direction which we must be careful not to overdo, if the Authority is to be truly free to reach its own decisions, other than in the exceptional case. Indeed I believe we have kept this kind of direction to the barest possible minimum, not least by agreeing in another place to the deletion of the power to give general directions in the national interest.
What remain are essentially reserve powers, to give directions in time of war or national emergency, or in the interests of national security, or in consequence of the Secretary of State's continuing responsibility for international relations in the field of civil aviation, or to deal with such environmental matters as the control of aircraft noise. There is also the power to direct the Authority to suspend action in a case or class of cases pending modification of the policy guidance—a power whose scope was narrowed in another place—and finally the power which is needed in order to set out by direction the terms of reference of the National Air Traffic Service. As I have said, these powers except the last are all by way of being reserve powers, for exceptional use only, and to demonstrate the Government's good faith in this regard we have provided in Clause 20 for the Authority to publish in its annual report details of all the directions that they are given under any of these powers I have mentioned,
1228
save to the extent it would conflict with the national interest for any particular details to be made public.
I turn now to appeals. Neither the last Government nor this one could accept the proposal in the Edwards Report that appeals in matters of air transport licensing should lie to the courts; nor could this Government accept the proposal that the grounds of appeal in such matters should be confined to the issue of the consistency of the Authority's decision with the objectives and policy guidance laid down. The essential reason for this lies in the fact—as I have mentioned earlier—that we are placing upon the Authority a duty to exercise its own discretion in reaching, decisions within the framework of the policy guidance. That guidance will set out and reflect a number of seperate strands of policy, amplifying and building upon the different elements that are already present in the objectives set out in Clause 3(1), and these various strands may quite often pull in different directions.
It will be for the Authority to strike a balance between the different elements of the policy guidance and to resolve any conflicts that may arise. Otherwise, if these matters were all to be resolved in advance, there would be no point in setting up the Authority. What this means, however, is that a court could not determine, from the policy guidance, whether the Authority had acted consistently with it or not. Nor is a court, in my view, well fitted to determine issues of economic policy. Therefore appeals on air transport licensing questions must lie to the Secretary of State. For the same essential reason, an appellant could not tell with any confidence whether the Authority's decision was consistent with the guidance or not; the question of consistency with the guidance would be altogether too subjective a matter for the grounds of appeal to be confined to that one issue.
Therefore, as a consequence of ensuring the reality of the Authority's discretion to resolve possible conflicts between different elements of the policy guidance, the right of appeal must be unrestricted. My Lords, I acknowledge that there is a danger in this—the danger that the Secretary of State will be tempted to vary or reverse the

1229
Authority's decision in such a way as to undermine its standing, much as the standing of the Air Transport Licensing Board was undermined at an early stage. It is for this reason that my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade declared in another place that it was the intention of the Secretary of State to uphold the Authority's decision unless there was a powerful reason to the contrary. Nor is that the only safeguard. The Air Transport Licensing Board was left, in effect, to work in a policy vacuum, but the Authority will have policy guidance laid down for it, which will be the Secretary of State's policy and which he will certainly have well in mind in considering any appeal that may come before him. In other words, because the Authority and the Secretary of State will both be working within the same policy framework, the likelihood that they will reach contrary conclusions is much reduced.
Finally, there are the regulations, and I refer particularly to those which are to be made under Clause 5, which will to some extent determine the way in which the Authority is to carry out its task. The purpose here is not to provide another channel for governmental intervention in the Authority's decisions but to safeguard the rights of parties in two main ways. First, under subsection (1), the regulations may prescribe what matters the Authority must decide itself, bearing in mind that without such provision paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 would enable the Authority to delegate its licensing decisions to anybody at all, without regard to who they were. Then, under subsection (2), regulations may prescribe rules of procedure, so as to ensure that parties are heard fairly, while subsection (3) places the Authority under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, so far as the Authority will be acting as a tribunal.
I turn to the Airways Board. The balance between independence and control was much easier to strike. Its function is to take strategic control of and financial responsibility for the public sector airlines. It must therefore have the powers it needs to carry out these responsibilities and the freedom to exercise its commercial judgment as would, in broadly the same way, a private sector holding company. But as in other
1230
Statutes governing nationalised industries, certain powers must be reserved to the Government. There is the control of appointments to the Airways Board, coupled with the control of the remuneration and pensions of board members. The counterpart of this control is the security of tenure enjoyed by board members during the currency of their appointments which enables them, as we have all witnessed, to take on occasion a robust independent line where the interests of their undertakings seem to them to be unreasonably threatened. There is the control given by the Bill of borrowing and investment, of reserves and of accounts, controls all of which are far-reaching in character bit which Governments have learnt to apply in a pragmatic fashion which gives the industries reasonable independence in their day-to-day activities.
Finally there are powers given by the Bill to the Secretary of State over interests in and the activities of subsidiaries which are certainly more controversial but which once more will need to be applied if at all—with care and sensitivity. The powers I am referring to have already been modified during the passage of the Bill in another place, and I would not regard them as carrying any sinister political overtones, in case anybody should think that they do.
There is however one set of powers provided in this part of the Bill which do perhaps deserve special mention in a survey of the kind I am making, since they arise from the nature of the particular job that is being undertaken in relation to the public sector airlines. I am referring here to the control given to the Secretary of State over the direct provision of air transport services by the Airways Board; the provisions, in Clause 39, for periodic reviews and reports on organisation, together with an associated power of direction and a power to give or withhold consent; and the Secretary of State's power, if certain conditions are satisfied, to make an Order, subject to Affirmative Resolution, dissolving either of the two Corporations.
It would have been open to us in this Bill to have taken the doctrine of independence for the Airways Board to the length of omitting the first two provisions, and enabling the Airways Board to dissolve the Corporations at will;

1231
equally we could have provided for far more rigorous Government or Parliamentary control of steps the Airways Board might wish to take to reduce the independence of the two Corporations.
Between these two extremes the Bill seems to me to adopt a fair balance, although it is inevitably one which leaves a good deal on trust to the Airways Board on the one hand and the Government on the other. We have concluded that any attempt to insert greater Parliamentary control over the oversight of the activities of the Airways Board which the Bill gives the Secretary of State would go some way to defeating what I described earlier as the cardinal objective, with which I hope we all would agree, that the Airways Board should be set up to get on with the important job which it has to perform.
My Lords, in pursuing this theme of the balance between independence and control, I have in fact touched upon most of the important issues which this House will wish to consider at Committee stage in dealing with the Bill. But before I conclude, there are a few other points that I should mention. First the setting up of the Airworthiness Requirements Board, which will carry over into the new arrangements that fund of experience and wisdom that has been characteristic of the work of the Air Registration Board under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. I would, if I may—and I think that everyone in your Lordships' House who knows anything about civil aviation would agree—like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to him and to his Board for what they have done over many years. The noble Lord will know that it is nothing to do with him that this change has been made; he had better look to Edwards rather than to the Government.
This provision in the Bill received a most searching scrutiny in another place. I think one can say that it now embodies, or reflects, nearly every suggestion that the noble Lord and his colleagues and staff have made during the extensive consultations that have taken place. I trust we can now look forward to the carrying over into the future machinery of everything that made the Air Registration
1232
Board what it was in terms of standing and authority in the world of aviation.
I ought to mention Clause 29, which was added in another place, and which refurbishes in a small, but important, respect the existing powers for controlling noise at British Airports Authority aerodromes, and extends them to cover other aerodromes where aircraft noise is, or may become, a nuisance. As my right honourable friend has pointed out, these powers will not, and cannot work miracles, but they should at least allow the problem of aircraft noise to be contained, despite the continuing expansion of civil aviation, until such time as quieter engines, or any other device that anybody can think of, are in general use.
This is a large and complex Bill, and I hope your Lordships will not think I have dealt with it cavalierly. It would take a long time to go through its 70 clauses and 11 Schedules, and I have not attempted to cover all its aspects. I personally am anxious to consider what other noble Lords have to say, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who knows a great deal more about civil aviation than I do, or shall ever hope to do.
Let me conclude by saying that, in my view, this is an important measure; in many ways it is a landmark not only for civil aviation but also in the evolution of the machinery of Government. It is a measure which has been widely welcomed, perhaps unusually so—and I hope that record will not be broken this morning—and for which many people have been waiting after a long period of uncertainty. I therefore commend this Bill with some confidence, and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
12.26 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has introduced this Bill, and especially for the fact that he has concentrated upon certain sensitive areas in the Bill instead of going through it in the normal, rather tedious, clause by clause fashion. I am grateful to him for the kind words he said about me, little as I think they reflect the actual truth. I hope that my gratitude will not be considered diminished by the fact that I shall go on to ask certain

1233
other questions, despite the fact that we have been given so much interesting additional interpretation of what is in the Bill.
Something was said about the antecedents; in fact, they go back further than the noble Lord indicated. The Bill itself has been on the stocks for a very long time. It is my view that the sooner it is launched, the better. There have been two particular consequential disadvantages of the delay in getting the Bill on to the Statute Book—apart from the degree of uncertainty. First, it has been necessary to appoint new chairmen for the two new Corporations, and clearly this would have been advantageous had it been done in accordance with the provisions of Clause 30 of the Bill. Secondly, we have had this controversial issue of additional opportunities for independent operators, and it is my view that this could have been dealt with with benefit through the machinery of the Licensing Authority, but I shall return to that later.
As the noble Lord has said, the time in the other place was used most constructively, and in certain ways the Bill has emerged greatly improved. However, in my view there remain weaknesses, and I am hoping that those who are interested, on all sides of the House, will contrive to make further improvements. I shall indicate this afternoon some of the principle areas where, with good will and the cooperation of the noble Lord who has given his attention to this matter, we might make further improvements. May I first ask the Minister to give us even a little more benefit of his thinking about the constitution of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority. His right honourable friend has said that the Authority should be strong and as independent as possible. That is fine. As the noble Lord himself said, there is a delicate balancing act here as between independence and control. But how is this body of 12 to 20 men or women to operate? They have to cover a wide variety of functions—in my view too wide a variety. What we need, and some of us have argued this for years, is a forward-looking, authoritative body, planning our air transport resources to the very best possible advantage, and using a slide-rule and professional judgment rather than political theory, in determining where advantage lay from the national, including the consumer, point of view. We wanted the emphasis
1234
on planning and licensing, rather than on administration of practically everything connected with civil air transport. I never thought, for example, that the A.R.B. should be placed directly under the responsibility of the Authority and I really cannot accept what the noble Lord said, that the Edwards Committee should be blamed, not the Government—
LORD CARRINGTON: Not blamed.
LORD BESWICK: Surely, my Lords, if they so wished the Government could have overruled a recommendation in this case as in others.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did not mean to suggest that the Edwards Committee should be blamed. I meant to suggest that nobody was casting any aspersions upon the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, or the Air Registration Board which he presided over with such distinction. The original idea came from the Edwards Committee, with which the Government agree.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord said two things: first, that we all, on both sides of the House, admire the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has presided over the affairs of the A.R.B., and I associate myself absolutely completely with that. But I take my admiration further. Because he has presided over the A.R.B. so remarkably well, because that body has the complete admiration and, indeed, affection of the entire industry, it is my view that in this case the Government might well have stood up against the recommendation of the Edwards Committee. Secondly, the noble Lord went on to say, as I think Hansard will show, that the grievance of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, is really with the Edwards Committee rather than with the Government, and in that I disagree.
But I was really laying the ground for a question. If we are to have the A.R.B. as a sort of separate division, as the Minister in another place has indicated, with the Chairman or chief executive of the A.R.B. on the parent authority, what interest then does the rest of the Authority have in the day-to-day workings of the A.R.B.? Very little, one would hope. But is the same structure to be applied to, say, airports and air traffic control? Is it envisaged

1235
that something like the present A.T.L.B. should continue to deal with licensing matters? If so, how many of the 12 to 20 members of the Authority are going to listen to licensing applications? Are we to have a mini authority within the parent Authority whose responsibility it will be to carry out the regulatory functions?
Then if we come to functions in Clause 2, the clause starts off by stating that:
" The functions of the Authority shall be—

(a) the functions conferred on it by the following provisions of this Part of this Act ".

It then goes into a good deal of detail in paragraphs (b) and (c), and in paragraph (d) states:
" such other functions as are for the time being conferred on it by virtue of this Act or any other enactment."
Could it not all have been put in that one paragraph (d); that the functions are the functions conferred upon it by this Act? Why do we want so much detail? And if we are to have so much detail, cannot some reference be made to the function of the Authority as custodian of the consumer interest? I know it has been said that of course it will consider complaints, but ought there not to be a reference in the Bill? I shall invite the Committee to consider an Amendment along those lines and I hope very much that the noble Lord opposite will find that he is able to give some sympathy to it.
Then, my Lords, there is the proposed duty of the Authority to pay its way, as the lawyers are fond of saying, one year with another. I was greatly impressed with what the noble Lord's right honourable friend had to say about this highly questionable provision. Are we sure that it will not be counter-productive? I can see that the A.R.B., which was financially self-supporting, should continue to be so and no doubt accountancy techniques will ensure that their up-turn is shown separately. Also I can see that it is right to expect a return for navigational services rendered, though as charges there are of international application and involve international agreement I should have thought there would be problems. In any case, we could look to that section for showing a return. But will the collection
1236
of airports also be expected to pay their way? If so, what happens to those maintained for social purposes? And if the Authority is to pay its way as a whole, will one division be expected to subsidise the activities of another? If that is the case then I can foresee a good deal of trouble.
Then what about the general principle of making a regulatory body with policing and enforcement responsibilities pay its way? Would it not be equally logical to say that the police force has to stand financially speaking on its own two feet? Does the D.T.I. charge for its supervision of companies? Moreover, are we not now in danger of placing our operators under a severe disadvantage as against foreign competitors? The noble Lord is no doubt aware of the calculations made by B.O.A.C. as to estimated additional financial obligations which will be placed upon it by the Bill as it now stands. As the Corporation has said, no airline in other countries has to meet the cost of the general administration of civil aviation. May I ask the noble Lord what is the Government's answer to that? I am all in favour of financial discipline. If the net result of all these changes meant an economy in real resources then I am open to be convinced about these charges, but so far as I can see there will be an increase and not a decrease in manpower needed.
This problem is greatly increased by the proposal to place upon the Authority a debt of between £35 million and £50 million as the notional capital value of the organisations to be taken over. What an extraordinary conception! I have no doubt that we shall all want to go into this much more closely at the Committee stage and I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to help. I content myself to saying this for the moment. If a capital sum of this magnitude has to be serviced at present interest rates, then we can say good-bye to any hope of the C.A.A. being self-supporting. I know that the Minister has said that there will be an extension of the transition period, but by the time money has been borrowed to pay for the short-fall and interest has been paid on those additional borrowings, and then we have interest payable on money borrowed to pay the original interest, the whole financial discipline will go. It is never more difficult—and I am sure that there are noble Lords in this House who

1237
know more about this than I, although my experience is reasonable—than to secure small economies when there are disproportionate debt charges. I recall the chairman of one organisation saying, "How can I expect the lights to be turned out when we leave the boardroom when we have such a burden of debt hanging over us anyhow? "I am sure that the noble Lord will expect us to go into this again much more closely at Committee stage.
The noble Lord gave us a good deal of information on appeals, but he will not be surprised—for I told him that I would say something—if I go into this a little further. Of all the experience we have had about the licensing of air transport, no single matter has given rise to more criticism and more frustration than the appeals procedure. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who is sitting opposite will agree with me about that. Arising from the 1946 Act, licensing responsibility was placed upon the A.T.A.C., a body concerned with consumer protection—and appeals went to the Minister. There were difficulties then, and on at least one occasion angry exchanges between Department and Committee. But that position was at least logical. Subsequently we had a properly constituted licensing organisation established and appeals multiplied to match the opportunities provided, and frustration increased and has persisted. I see that in the eleventh Report of the A.T.L.B., an informative report of outstanding clarity, it is stated—and possibly the noble Lord got his words from there—with a commendable candour in paragraph 8 that:
" The history of appeals against the Board's decisions has gone far to undermine the Board's authority."
My Lords, that is absolutely and completely true, and we simply must not allow history, in this context, to be repeated. There must be some restriction upon appeals. As the noble Lord himself has said, his right honourable friend has considerable sympathy with the proposition that I am putting forward and has said that he proposes to allow only a minimum number of appeals. But, frankly, I did not follow the argument of the noble Lord when he said that that undertaking will reduce the number of
1238
appeals. If the Secretary of State has a duty to hear appeals, then he must listen to all appeals and give all an equal hearing before he can decide that there is substance in the one and not in the other. If he is to differentiate, then I respectfully suggest that the grounds of his differentiation should be set out in the Bill. I hope that we can get together, all of us, on this to see whether something can be worked out. This problem of appeals crops up again in Clause 26. This clause deals with the regulation of what some people might call travel agents, though the Bill describes them (and those who know anything about the matter will know that it must have been difficult to get a suitable description) as "providers of accommodation in aircraft". That regulation is necessary in this field, I wholeheartedly agree. But here appeals will lie in the county court or, in Scotland, in the sheriff's court. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was at some pains to tell us that courts were not a suitable place for hearing matters of economic and commercial complexity, and I must say that at first sight, or even second sight, this provision in Clause 26 does seem a bizarre affair. With all respect to the county court judge and the sheriff, can they possibly be better qualified than the body set up expressly to deal with this quite specialised commercial activity? How do Her Majesty's Government think that this is going to work out? What kind of procedure will be followed in the court? Will the judge have a technical assessor? 'Will the Authority be a defendant, or how will the Authority make their case when the matter is considered?
My Lords, before I leave the regulatory provisions of the Bill I must return to this controversial issue of the so-called "Second Force". I disagree with the terminology. It assumes, not necessarily correctly, that the two present front-line forces, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., will be merged. But let me make this clear—and I think I have made it clear before. I accept all the implications of paragraph 39 of the White Paper issued by the Government of which I was a member. Where I think a mistake has been made is in the implementation of that paragraph by the present Government. I am not here seeking to stir up controversy;

1239
I want to be helpful. I do not believe that the reference in Clause 3(1)(b) to
" one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board "
is calculated to serve the best interests of those concerned. Judgments in the future should be taken by the Authority in the interests of the country and our air transport effort alone, and irrespective of the type of ownership of the applicant.
If it is decided by Her Majesty's Government, and indeed by their predecessor Government, that our effort should not be confined to those organisations controlled by the B.A.B., then that principle might well be enshrined in the Bill. But this wording refers to one airline. Would it not be wiser to have a less provocative form of words? Could we not have something which said that, in fulfilling the functions set out in subsection (1)(a), due regard should be paid to the contribution of airlines not controlled by the British Airways Board, or something along those lines? I am not trying here to get an exact form of words. I know Mr. Adam Thompson, and have great regard for his ability, and it certainly looks as if his organisation now fits into the kind of pattern which the Edwards Committee envisaged. But things change in the aviation world. It may be that, as someone once said, a new Messiah may arise—a man of genius, a man of great ability, who brings along another organisation. Why should not the claims of that body be considered? So I suggest to the noble Lord with all earnestness that we might, in Committee, try to get a new form of words there.
I make a passing reference to noise. The noble Lord referred to Clause 29 and said it will not work miracles. I would suggest to him that it is much more likely to come nearer to a miracle if there were some sanctions behind the powers in that clause. This was discussed at some length, and I know, again, that his right honourable friend had some sympathy with the arguments which were advanced. I hope that, on reflection, in Committee, the noble Lord will be able to say that it would be useful to back up those powers with some penalties. My noble friend Lord Burntwood will be making reference, I believe, to certain staff matters. Clearly there must be assurances to those staff affected by these changes.
1240
I have two other matters with which I want to deal. One concerns the status and the role of the British Airways Board. The noble Lord gave us certain information about that, but I would invite him to look again at what is actually in the Bill. If one turns to Clause 38 and looks at the functions of the Board, one sees that we are told quite straightforwardly and clearly what functions they have. Clause 38(1)(a) says:
" to provide air transport services ",
et cetera. Then it goes on, in paragraph (c):
" to control all the activities of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation…and for that purpose to give to the corporations or either of them such directions as the Board thinks fit."
Then, paragraph (d) reads:
" to appoint such persons as the Board thinks fit as the chairmen, deputy chairmen and other members of the corporations ",
and so on. That is fair enough. That is giving a real status and a real role to the Board. But if we turn over to subsection (2) paragraph (a) says:
" the Board shall not exercise its powers under paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection except with and in accordance with a general or special authorisation given by the Secretary of State."
Then, again, in connection with the appointment of a person as the chairman, it says that the appointment shall not be made unless the Secretary of State gives his approval.
My Lords, I know there has to be control as well as delegation of responsibility, and the noble Lord has said that only under certain special conditions will these qualifications in subsection (2) be applied. Nevertheless, what is important in these matters is not the undertakings given by his right honourable friend but what is actually in the Bill. I hope that, there again, we can see whether we cannot get into the Bill something along the lines of what the noble Lord said was intended to go into the Bill.
My Lords, I make this final point. I ask the noble Lord: Does this Bill purport to be an exercise of Fulton in hiving-off technical or commercial activities from the Civil Service with a view to getting more efficient, more economic and more productive results? If that is the case, then I ask him: What is the net effect

1241
in manpower? In some cases, of course, it is just a straight transfer from Department or the A.R.D. to the C.A.A. But leaving aside those transferred, this ought to mean some saving in Civil Service manpower. If the Authority and the Airways Board are to be allowed to get on with the work in the way the noble Lord suggests, then there ought to be fewer persons needed in the Department to look over them. I see in the Financial Memorandum that, in fact, rather than a saving of manpower there are to be 25 additional civil servants required, because, it says, of additional functions of the Minister. This is in relation to C.A.A. alone. There are no savings under the part dealing with the B.A.B. This does not seem to me to be a good augury. It casts some doubt on the hiving-off, Fultonian philosophy. It does not indicate, it certainly gives no conclusive proof, that the right balance between independence and control has been reached.
My Lords, I put forward these questions in a constructive spirit. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and I look forward to having a useful time when we get together on the Select Committee.
12.50 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT or WHITLEY: My Lords, some of your Lordships may be surprised to see me appearing as an expert on civil aviation. I should like to reassure you; I have no such pretentions. My noble friend Lord Amherst hoped to be able to speak on this Second Reading, but unfortunately is not able to be present, for reasons outside his control. In consultations with him we decided that there were one or two things that we wished to say from these Benches and one or two questions that we wished to ask. Therefore I hope that noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will make allowances for this. I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his explanation of and brief introduction to the Bill and to assure him that my comments will be equally brief.
Clause 2 of the Bill sets out in broad terms the functions of the new Authority. It looks really as if the Authority can do almost anything to everything in the realms of civil aviation. In equally
1242
broad terms, it seems that the C.A.A. is to take over the functions previously performed by A.L.T.B., the A.R.B. and all aspects of civil aviation that the Board of Trade are presently performing. It is to be under the guidance arid direction eventually of the Secretary of State. I think that the first thing that we must query is whether the putting together of all these functions under one hat is going to be the best possible thing for the operators, and even more so, for the travelling public. That is something to which I want to return. It may be that in the long run the operators will be glad to have only one door to knock on, and that the travelling public also will be glad to have but one door at which to knock when they have, or fancy they have, grievances—if they are allowed to knock on it. But it seems also that the Authority, or the Board, have functions connected with the management and direction of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. which overlap to a certain extent and which may cause a certain amount of muddle or dispute. Is there not a risk of considerable duplication, or even the whittling away of the Corporations' authority over their own destinies? If there is this overlapping of functions, this area where it is not quite certain who has the authority, is that not likely to lead to an increase in clerical and administrative staffs? I would here associate myself with the query of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on the administrative staffs.
As an example of the kind of overlapping which I am talking about, I should like to mention some of the powers of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned some of them. Here is the list that I have collected. The Secretary of State can prevent the B.A.B. from operating air services themselves; he can require recurrent organisation reviews and order the implementation of them; he can withhold consent and so prevent a substantial reorganisation of the group; he can direct the disposal of the Board s interest in any undertaking; he can require the Board to secure restriction of its activities or disposal of a subsidiary's assets; he has control of equipment hire in addition to control of expenditure on capital account; he has a duty to prescribe the financial duty of the Board in terms of a return on net assets and has power to

1243
change the financial duty; he has extended powers of control over the maintenance and disposal of reserves; he can direct the form of particulars to be contained in the accounts of subsidiaries above and beyond the necessary legal requirement for private trading companies; and he can, with the approval of Parliament, dissolve either or both Corporations.
My Lords, it is argued that these powers are permissive and that the Ministers will very likely never use them; but I wonder whether it is in the interests of the State Corporations that there should he such a large area for the Secretary of State? Is it really in conformity with the Government's main policy of disengagement from industrial ventures? I should like also to draw attention to Clause 38(1)(d) which gives the Board the right to terminate the appointment of members of the Corporation at any tame, regardless of their original terms of appointment—a stipulation which seems hardly to make for confidence. On the subject of personnel, I should like to ask one or two questions. I understand that the present staff of A.L.T.B. and A.R.B. and those of the section of the Board of Trade concerned with civil aviation are to be transferred to the new C.A.A. I have been told (I do not know that this is correct) that they will be ordered to do so and that there will not be individual options. Most of the staff have full Civil Service status at the moment. Are they to retain this after transfer or not? If not, will there not be some disgruntlement? To start with a disgruntled staff hardly augurs well for the new Authority.
Finally, my Lords, touching on how the consumers come off in the Bill, in another place the Minister said that the C.A.A. must consider the consumer. I think the failing in this Bill is that there is virtually no mention of the duties to the consumer. Looking at it dispassionately, it is true to say that consumers' wants and requirements are very much the concern of the business and sales promotion people in the industry. But sometimes, for strictly commercial reasons and even political ones, the wants of the consumer may be set aside. Somewhere in this C.A.A. there should be a central
1244
point to which the consumer has access which would deal with consumer needs and complaints—a mini-Ombudsman, if you like. I make no particular suggestion. But there should be someone to whom the consumer can air his grievances and make suggestions or complain. The complaints can then be given attention and passed to the proper quarters for action. All this should be over and above what obviously goes on happening in the individual Corporations themselves. I suppose that this point could be met by an Amendment to the Bill in Committee.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said something to the effect that this was a very interesting experiment in the machinery of government. We are not too happy about this experiment, or about the not-too-clear lines drawn between the Secretary of State on the one hand and the Authority on the other, and between the Authority on the one hand and the Corporations on the other. We are not all that happy about the place given to the consumer in the whole of this concept.
1.0 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for what he has said about the Air Registration Board and about me. I was very touched by his tribute and I know that my colleagues will deeply appreciate what he has said, as they will appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, by his remarks, has almost persuaded me to delete from my notes certain comments which may yet appear to be fairly critical; but I think that, in his usual generous spirit, he will probably accept them. The noble Lord has done for me what I had in mind to do at the outset: namely, to declare my interest in the matters being discussed, because I am Chairman of the Air Registration Board which, if this Bill becomes law, will disappear and be replaced by the Airworthiness Requirements Board. This new A.R.B. will be part of the Civil Aviation Authority. The only additional matter that I might mention is that in this interest that I am declaring there is no financial component, because the Chairman of the Air Registration Board is unpaid.

1245
If the noble Lords will bear with me for a few minutes I should like to approach the things we are talking about from a rather different angle from that of noble Lords who have already spoken. Before coming to the Bill itself, I should like to remark briefly on the shape of the aeronautical industry with which the new Authority will have to work; because I believe that the shape of the Authority, its structure and people, will be dependent on the shape of the industry. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a public body to regulate the British civil aviation industry, and to establish another to manage the publicly owned British airways. We have recently discussed in your Lordships' House the Governmental organisation for British civil aerospace. What we need now is to produce some British civil aircraft, and I hope that, with the revision of the administrative machinery completed, this will be the next phase.
My Lords, I find it more and more difficult to see a coherent policy develop for our aviation industry, or indeed any major aviation industry, other than a policy in which civil and military aviation dovetail and are inter-dependent. Although arrangements have been made to keep military aviation policy and civil aviation policy in different departments, the procurement is now in both cases in the Department of Defence; and I believe that this, under the leadership of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Defence, provides a great opportunity to co-ordinate the needs of our physical defence with our economic attack on the markets of the future, including our own. To-day, and for some years past, the British aircraft industry has been exporting at the rate of about £300 million a year—half its turnover. It can go on making this impressive contribution to the balance of trade only on the basis of the prototypes, military and civil, of a decade or more ago. A decade hence it will be depending on the prototypes of to-day. In the civil field, what are they? Half the Concorde; one-quarter of the A.300B and, to the eternal credit of Britten Norman, the Trislander. In the engine area, there is the RB.211, with a cloud over it, and a share in the M.45. This is the situation which I hope, with our new machinery, we shall, as a matter of urgency, seek to correct; and this
1246
is a matter in which the new Authority will have a vital part to play.
I believe, my Lords, that, in or out of the European Economic Community, the British aircraft industry is a vitally important component of our economic future. I think it must have a binary pattern, a pattern of national endeavour and international collaboration. And I think, equally, for maximum success this binary character will have to extend to the Civil Aviation Authority. Without international collaboration we could not participate in the great projects which the developments in STOL and VTOL and supersonic flight have brought to our doorstep. Without a strong national design and construction ability we could not offer participation anyway, and without strong connections with the regulatory authorities elsewhere we should not be able to project our great experience of safety administration into areas of the world where expertise and influence in these matters are rapidly increasing. So the binary pattern, I think, is a sine qua non.
We have in the latter years of the Air Registration Board, been developing our work on this basis: conducting a reciprocal policy of rationalisation of regulations with the United States; taking the leading part in collaboration with the French in creating airworthiness requirements for supersonic aircraft; associating with other European countries in a concerted move towards a European airworthiness code and, in our own bailiwick, shaping the requirements for aircraft of the STOL and VTOL kinds. This is the recent A.R.B. contribution and I hope it will continue, under the régime of the proposed C.A.A., towards aviation's exciting future. I have on previous occasions in your Lordship's House urged the vital importance to us in this future of STOL and VTOL projects, and I have urged the need for achieving the major projects by international companies. I have not however suggested how the national effort in the civil field should be planned. I hope, my Lords, that you will not consider it irrelevant if I should mention this because I believe that it is part and parcel of the future in which the Civil Aviation Authority has to take its place. It seems to me that a great deal of most valuable work, which would shape the activities of the new Authority,

1247
could immediately be put in hand. Government support would, of course, be needed, but I believe that it could be on an acceptable scale.
I feel sure that by the modification—a major modification, it may be—of existing aircraft designs, we can take most valuable steps forward to STOL while more ambitious STOL and VTOL designs are being advanced internationally. I feel sure that an aeroplane like the HS. 748 can be modified in such a way as to produce an STOL, vehicle. It would, I expect, incorporate high-lift devices and jet engines. I feel sure that the BAC 1–11 could be modified by changes in wing design and power plant development to achieve very short take-off and landing. Design work on these lines would show the way to later marks—stretched versions, fattened versions; perhaps both stretched and fattened versions. We could proceed step by step, and the regulation and control of a new kind of aircraft and a new kind of aircraft operation could develop in parallel.
My Lords, I have tried to give a picture of what I believe the manufacturing part of the industry should look like because I believe it would define the outlook and the policy of the Authority which is to regulate and control it. I admit that if our airlines operated nothing but foreign aircraft, there would still be the need for regulation and control, But for us here, with our history of aeronautical pioneering, invention, and out-standing design, such a situation must be unthinkable. I hope, therefore, that the C.A.A. will quickly develop a spirit and a philosophy consistent with a revitalising policy for the civil aviation aircraft industry. In taking over from the existing agencies it must be careful not to introduce impedances; there must be no diminution in flexibility; the controller and the controlled must continue to exhibit the harmony which it has been my privilege for so long to experience in my work with the Air Registration Board.
That Board, my Lords, has another characteristic of great importance. Its independence, in reality, was complete. The Minister concerned with civil aviation delegated certain powers to the A.R.B. and they stayed delegated. This autonomy was sustained by financial
1248
independence; and financial independence is a very great help towards independence of judgment. The A.R.B. balanced its books; and it still does. So one cannot help being disturbed by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the financial position of the new Authority. One must ask whether the new Airworthiness Requirements Board will be allowed, as he suggested it might, to develop independence of the kind enjoyed by its "father", the Air Registration Board. I do not understand how the new Authority can become self-supporting, and this surely is a weakness. So, in what I feel are going to be difficult financial circumstances, I believe that every effort must be made to give the C.A.A. the maximum autonomy. Consequently, I have been apprehensive about those clauses in the Bill which seem—and I say no more than seem—to cause some of the apprehension produced by what the Secretary of State has said today, and to give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry unnecessary powers.
For example, it seems from Clauses 22, 23 and 24 that he can overrule decisions of the Authority on the granting of air transport licences. This subject has been referred to already. I think it is a rather serious matter, but perhaps not quite so serious as I thought at first. I felt, too, that there were opportunities in the clauses dealing with the Airways Board for the sort of paternalism which could impede its operations as the board of a major industrial organisation. As I say, to some extent these apprehensions have been diluted, but the fact remains that if a Government delegate duties in any field, they must trust the body they have created for the purpose. The process of delegation is one intended to relieve central Government of all but the ultimate responsibilities, and the success of the method depends upon the selection of the right people and letting them get on with it. In fact, the success or failure of this new machine, the C.A.A., will depend on giving the maximum responsibility to the right people and upon their operating their control in a flexible and sympathetic way. Membership of the new body will, of course, change with time, but the first members, with a new, delicate and difficult task, will, I think, produce an administrative pattern which their successors will find it difficult to

1249
change. Further, the task confronting the selection committee is of peculiar importance, and in its performance, on the assumption that the C.A.A. will be created, I am sure the House will hope that the Government will be inspired.
But however quickly Her Majesty's Government move, it must be many months before the new Authority is at work, and I hope that any temptation to postpone subordinate legislation, which could now be possible, will be resisted. I have in mind, as examples, delegation orders in respect of noise measurement and of hovercraft and the creation of a register of aircraft mortgages, which I am told would contribute to the wellbeing of the aircraft manufacturing industry. My Lords, the Bill as originally drafted has been improved in many parts in its passage through another place. It has been improved in Clause 27, in which my A.R.B. colleagues and I are most interested, and we were gratified by the generous acknowledgement the Minister for Trade made on June 29 of the advice he had had from us. The history of this matter is a long one, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, indicated, going back to the Edwards Committee, which reported over two years ago. Since then my colleagues and I have consistently argued for the maximum autonomy for the A.R.B. and, if possible, for a continuation of its present degree of independence. The Government and their predecessors have not found this last possible, but they have moved a long way towards us, and for this we are grateful. There are still changes in detail directed towards minimum direction from above, flexibility in operation and the securing of the positions of staff transferred to the Authority, which I hope to see made in the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. But I certainly now intend to give it my general support.
1.14 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I am sure that of all of us listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lords Kings Norton, in view of his great experience. I personally should like to thank him for what he has done over many years for the industry. I can say, having piloted British aircraft in China forty years ago, that when they arrived with the A.R.B. ticket, I felt reassured and I still feel the same, whatever the make of aircraft.
1250
This Bill is long overdue. It should have been produced a considerable time ago. The Edwards Report was in another place for nearly 18 months and I always regret that it was not debated. If we had had a good debate on the Edwards Report, it might have ventilated many of the feelings in different parts of the country and brought out the views of the country on this Report. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I should like to expand my remarks to deal a little with the industry because, unless we have a healthy aircraft and aero-engine industry in this country, the authorities are going to control foreign aircraft and that is not a good sign for the country's economy. The trouble really started when the Labour Government cancelled the TSR 2. I do not want to be controversial about this, but that was the beginning of the end. The troubles that followed throughout the whole of the industry in the last six or seven years have disheartened designers and those on the shop floor. Apart from Concorde, there are no supported civil aircraft projects on the stocks. I have never known the industry to be so rundown as it is at the present time.
This Government have been in being for only a year. They have had to deal with many problems which they inherited, but I hope that now they are going to give their attention to the problems of the aircraft industry and make amends for what has gone wrong in previous years. The industry at this moment is in a vacuum. One firm, Hawker-Siddeley is building the wing of the A.300B European Airbus as a private venture, with their own money. Brittain-Norman may well sell the Tri-Lander rights to Israel, to raise cash. It is a small successful firm. For the rest, apart from the continued production of BAC 1–11 and HS 748 and some Westland Helicopters, mostly military, there is nothing coming along. It is difficult to have a successful aero-engine business—Rolls-Royce are handicapped in this respect with the RB 211—unless we have a healthly airframe business, because the two must go together. If we depend entirely on Rolls-Royce for the future technology of aero-engines and try to sell them to America or Europe, they are going always to be driven to a very hard sell, unless we have our own airframes

1251
to prove them and get home based orders. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, that work could be given on the STOL aircraft, the 1–11 and 747, which could give enormous encouragement to the design offices and on the shop floor.
If I may, I should like to refer to B.O.A.C., an airline for which I have the greatest admiration. I shall be flying over the North Atlantic on Monday in a B.O.A.C. aircraft, and whenever I can I go B.O.A.C. and find a great many Americans are queueing to fly in the VC 10. I should like to say that the biggest mistake that ever was made was when Sir Giles Guthrie was appointed Chairman of B.O.A.C. and after spending half a million pounds in advertising the VC 10, he then said they did not want to use them, because the operating costs were higher than the costs of the 707. Of course, they were slightly higher but, as the VC 10 has an improved performance in take-off and landing and is a much safer airplane, it has a sales value which was never appreciated by the marketing people in B.O.A.C. It has been a winner. Now it has been suggested—I hope it is not too late—that the VC 10 can be stretched to carry 200 passengers. It will have two Rolls Royce RB 211 engines. If things go wrong in the proceedings in Congress about the RB 211, this could be the beginning of something quite successful. With two highly developed engines, a low fuel consumption and low noise level, this might be the ideal airplane. The impression at the moment in both North America and Europe is that the Jumbos are far too big for the job. They are ahead of their time. Many of them are flying practically empty, and of course they will have to bring prices down to fill them up. I hope that the Government will give urgent attention to this VC 10 project, which could sell, I am told, for something like £4 million, instead of £10 million or £12 million for the larger Jumbo.
B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are the two main carriers of the British flag. It is worth while looking back to the time when B.O.A.C. operated the South American route, and lost about £1 million a year doing so. They gave it up, and this important route for trade for Britain was
1252
left without a British operator. B.U.A. stepped in and operated, again with VC 10s, and in the matter of a year or two made a profit of about £500,000. When we criticise the independent operators, we have to give them credit for doing what they did there. But is it not too much, when an independent carrier has stepped into the breach and filled the gap, to say: "No. You have made a success of that airline, and you must stay with it"? To be viable an operator must have more than one route. Here there is perhaps justification for B.U.A. being allowed to expand its routes to make it a worthwhile airline.
The Air Transport Licensing Board came to its conclusions without, I think, pressure from the Minister of Trade: it was an independent decision. Any airline is perfectly entitled to go to the Board, seek permission to operate, and ask for routes where it believes it can give a better service than either B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. The Board was instituted by Parliament, and it is now to be superseded by the Authority. But over the years I think the Air Transport Licensing Board has acted correctly and fairly. One has not, of course, always agreed with their conclusions, but I think they have done a very fine job of work. The new Authority must resist outside pressures, from whatever quarter they may arise: again, it must be absolutely independent. Why, may I ask, are the Opposition so against a Second Force airline? This was supported by the Edwards Committee set up by the Labour Government and, as I said previously, not debated. But the United States have Pan-American, T.W.A. and many other charter companies flying across the Atlantic every hour of the day. Surely it is right for Britain to strengthen itself and have another carrier to get the yardstick of competition. But the air crew and ground staff must have comparable conditions of pay and pensions to those of the nationalised airlines.
I should like to refer briefly to the problem of noise. I am sure this is something that will be an increasing problem as the years go by, and the public are paying much more attention to it than they did a few years ago. Everything must be done—and I do not think sufficient is being done—to alleviate this problem. I have said already, and I

1253
think it is known, that the Rolls-Royce RB 211 goes a long way on any previous engine to bring about a lower level of noise. But, having said that, I believe that if Concorde is a successful aeroplane—and I have every reason to think that it will be—when it comes to operate across the North Atlantic we shall have tremendous resistance from the United States. There will be lobbying going on in all directions, based on noise, side noise or whatever it may be, to keep it out, for the simple reason that they have not got one themselves. I have been told this by Americans, and I referred the then Prime Minister to it in another place a few years ago. The British Government must watch this carefully. If we can proceed with it; if the French can get it certified as airworthy and the airlines order it, but it is not bought on the other side of the Atlantic, when it goes into service there will be resistance. If they had had their own supersonic aircraft, of course, there would have been no problem: they would have backed it, because they would have wanted to send their supersonic into Europe. But this is something that must be clarified before we go on spending a lot of money. I hope we can prove that the noise level will be lower than many people think.
On the question of noise generally, I think that airport managers have to take the law into their own hands rather more than they have done previously and make full use of their measuring equipment. Could it not be that the glide path in some cases could be 3 per cent.? Could it be steepened? I am told—I have a small apartment just round the corner, and I hear them—that many aircraft approaching the glide path to Heathrow fly below the glide path, and sometimes intersect it. I am convinced that at night many aircraft come over Westminster at a lower height than they should do. I hope that we can be told a little more about noise, and that, where necessary, airport managers will be encouraged to take action.
The British Airways Board was, I think, the right decision. I think it will bring together the two national carriers, bring about economies—aviation medicine, catering, air crew, joint pension schemes and so on. There are many things that the Board can achieve, and I think they are long overdue. It is a modern way of running any industry
1254
to have a holdings board to think out the problems in addition to the day-to-day operation problems.
This Bill has had the broad support of the Opposition in another place. The Authority will cover all aviation services, will plan the industry's growth and control licensing and airworthiness. I have said this before, but I should like again to pay my respects to the Air Registration Board. But, as I see it, the Air Registration Board is not adequately defined in the new Bill. Where the Air Registration Board is placed under the Authority, why not make the A.R.B. a wholly owned subsidiary, operating as before, but responsible to the Board of the Authority, with its chairman on the C.A.A. Board. I believe that if the Air Registration Board operated as a subsidiary under the Authority, but completely answerable to them, this would give it a distinct authority of its own. May I say to the Secretary of State—I do not mean it in any derogatory way—that he may get a better result in the long run.
What we need in this country is a really co-ordinated plan for the airports of the United Kingdom. Apart from the five airports under the British Airports Authority—namely, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Prestwick and Turnhouse—we need a thought-out system to serve the population of the whole of the United Kingdom. I can give one instance, that of Manchester, which is an airport very well run by the Manchester City Council. But we have Liverpool, 40 miles away, trying hard to achieve the same thing and become an international airport. Surely we need some sense brought to this whole situation. There is even talk about having a River Severn-side airport, and probably Filton is the best place. What progress is being made there, in the West country? I hope we can be told that we shall have a thought-out plan for the airports covering the whole of our country and that the Government will give guidance and encouragement, wherever possible, to ensure that the population of this island get all the benefits and the advancements of aviation which they deserve.
1.28 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I had not wanted to introduce the subject of procurement, but I feel, in view of the

1255
remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, and more especially, the particular viewpoint expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, it is only fair to say that in the matter of the procurement of aircraft for this country we cannot economically produce aircraft for our sole use. The uncertainties of the potential exports are so serious, and we have been let down so badly in the past, that the greatest caution must be exercised in advocating new aircraft to be designed for civil aviation. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, I am appalled at the idea that we have nothing on the stocks. I do not apportion blame. The idea of the British Corporations flying foreign aircraft, I should have thought, gives nobody any pleasure.
Looking back a little in history, one must remember that the cancellation of the TSR 2, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, and the subsequent difficulties of other new aircraft, were occasioned by the refusal of people whom we should call our friends to join with us on reciprocal terms to encourage the production of such aircraft in this country. Had it not been for the regrettable tendency for Australia and New Zealand to buy American, I feel that the TSR 2 project as well as the interests of B.O.A.C. could have been advanced considerably. When I was at the Ministry of Aviation. I was told to watch the position about the negotiations over New Zealand, and their decision to buy American after the most urgent representations both at personal and Government level makes me view with some cynicism their attitude towards the Common Market negotiations.
Now there seems to be a general con-census of opinion that in the matter of licensing under this proposed Bill there are three major considerations and three matters on which we should be satisfied: first, that the applicant for a licence should have the skill and resources to make the route and the service viable; secondly, that if routes are already being served by either of the Corporations then this new service should not unduly impair their services; and thirdly—and this is a point on which I should like clarification from the Minister—that the joint income which it is estimated will be made by the dual services will more than offset any "diseconomies".
1256
I should like to know whether that third proposition is still acceptable to the Government. I make the point because already we have evidence that the Government have transferred routes to Caledonian/B.U.A. which will mean a drop in profits on those routes of £1½ million per annum. I should have thought that the Government have viewed with complacency the applications for new licences which go beyond what had been agreed and indicated to Parliament would be the limit of the transferring of routes. I take the view, and here I may be at variance with most noble Lords, that the institution of the Second Force is highly undesirable. That is water under the bridge now, I suppose; but I should have thought that the Edwards Committee having reported over two years ago and in the light of subsequent world events a great deal more caution should have been exercised before putting into operation the proposals for Caledonian/B.U.A. now embodied in the Bill. All over the world there are indications of a drop in air traffic. In the U.S.A. the New York to San Francisco services have been cut by 40 per cent. and services on the New York to Los Angeles route by 30 per cent. So far as B.O.A.C. is concerned, the Tokyo route from San Francisco has had to be abandoned because of the estimated loss of £3½ million in an operating year.
I do not think that the air transport industry is one which should necessarily be backward-looking the whole time—on the contrary, I think the potential is very large—but the slump which was felt last year in America is now being felt here and there is the added great uncertainty of the role to be played by the charter companies. Already in America a lobby is being stimulated to remove the prohibition on the sale of accommodational charter flights other than to members of accepted clubs. As I say, this has already started in America, and as I read the situation you will get a similar tendency here, if only for the reason that the scheduled services are flying with substantial accommodation unsold. You have only to see the activities of certain gentlemen in Chelsea to realise that there is a big business building up for getting round the regulations and ensuring that charter flights go off nearly 100 per cent. full. These are tendencies

1257
which we ought to watch. I take the view that competition domestically should not receive the high consideration that the Government are giving to it. It is competition from the foreign airlines which is our main problem.
I should like to discuss the question of the terms under which people work and the machinery for confronting employees and employers in the industry. I have read very carefully the report of discussions in another place on this subject, and for the life of me I cannot understand the resistance which is being shown by the Government to enforcing affiliation of all airlines to the N.J.C. for Civil Aviation. It is true that Caledonian/B.UA. are affiliated, but I do not think that noble Lords may appreciate the extent to which other subordinate airlines are not affiliated and where, as I have said, there is no acceptable machinery for confronting staff and employers. Among the airlines in this country which I am advised are not affiliated are British Midland, Court, Monarch, Britannia, Lloyd International, Skyways International and Laker.
I would be very adverse to implying any criticism of the services provided by these airlines; but in my mind and, I suspect, in the public's mind there is some association between working conditions which do not come up to the standards laid down by the Corporations and the conditions of work and pay operating in the type of company I have mentioned, and the whole question of safety. I read the exchange in another place on the subject of safety records so far as the Corporations and these small airlines are concerned. I do not want to enter into that very delicate matter because things can be distorted quite seriously either way; but at the same time, staff who are aggrieved and working conditions which are not so very good militate against the impression in the public's mind of the efficiency of these smaller airlines. The responsibilities of the new licensing authority will not in any way improve this situation, and it would assist very much if there were an obligation for all air travellers to become members of the Employers' Side of the National Joint Council.
Nothing in the Bill gives any machinery to deal with recalcitrant employers. I would say that constant vigilance must
1258
be employed to weed out the undesirable elements—and some do exist—in this sector of the industry. We should not denigrate the progress which I personally believe this Bill will achieve in making the industry more efficient, and, in our minds, we must not be critical of some of its provisions. I believe the greatest good that can come of it, as the noble Earl said in his interrupted speech, is the endeavour which I am prepared to believe is absolutely necessary on the part of the Government to reduce to a minimum ministerial interference. But the fact of the matter is that so long as there is ministerial, and therefore, political, interference there will be this dichotomy concerning fragmentation. There has been too much of that in our civil aviation history. Fragmentation will be continued and we shall therefore not be able to compete fully with those other countries which have secured a unified service.
The noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, mentioned the service which could be achieved more efficiently by co-ordinating the efforts of the various corporations or companies. He mentioned a few of them, and I can think of catering, publicity, planning operations, affiliated transport requirements, and the like. Already this tendency is towards co-ordination and cooperation, and this is being achieved by the K.S.S.U. which, broadly speaking, looks after the Northern European airlines on a unified basis, while the Atlas consortium looks after the middle and Southern European companies.
We are lagging behind if we encourage fragmentation in our ability to compete with other countries. However, having said that, I must add that, on balance, the Bill is desirable, and I hope that as more wisdom comes to the Government they will introduce certain changes. I hope that first and foremost they will consider the position of staff, and the need to confront employers with proper machinery; and I should like the Minister, when he replies, to make some mention of the position of many hundreds of civil servants who have been, as it were, transferred out of the Civil Service and whose interests, about which too little has so far been said, must be safeguarded.
1.41 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, this is a good Bill, and one for which civil aviation has waited for a long time—many of us think too long—but nevertheless it is welcome now that it is here. I hope that one of its results will be to give a holiday from politics for civil aviation. Civil aviation has been knocked about for far too long by all political Parties. Having said that the Bill is a good one, I should add that, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, it is still capable of improvement. There are one or two points that I should like to ask the Minister and Her Majesty's Government to consider.
First, I share the regret expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, that the Air Registration Board has not kept its previous absolutely independent position; and is to be subordinate to the executive, the C.A.A., with certain improved safeguards which give it semi-independence. This has been introduced by the Government into the Bill. I have been connected with aviation for a good many years—more years than I care to remember—and safety in aviation is all. Safety must be sought and must be seen to be sought. It is for this reason that I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider one further improvement in this matter of the Air Registration Board. In Clause 27, subsection (2)(c), of the Bill, the Government have gone some way, but not far enough. The paragraph lays down that the Civil Aviation Authority must notify the A.R.B. if their views and advice are rejected. Clause 20 says that any such objection must be recorded in the C.A.A.'s annual report. Let us assume for a moment that there is an unfortunate conflict between the executive and the A.R.B. on some matters affecting safety, and that it occurs in the first month of the C.A.A.'s year. The year goes by and there is probably another three months before the C.A.A. report comes out. Therefore the C.A.A. notification to the public that there has been a difference on some matter with which the A.R.B. deals may not be known to the public for fifteen months. So important is safety that I should like to see the Government consider an Amend-men which would make it imperative for the C.A.A. to report forthwith to the Secretary of State if a difference existed,
1260
such difference being incorporated in due course in the annual report. This would eliminate the possibility of a gap of anything up to fifteen months between an incident of difference and its publication. I trust that I have made myself clear to the Minister and that he will consider the matter.
I now turn to Clause 29, subsections (1) and (5), dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State for direction over matters of noise. I am against any unnecessary noise, but I believe the checking of noise is going to come from engineering and technical development, and it is in that direction we should go, rather than control of the form of operation. These subsections give the Secretary of State power to direct operators of aircraft, on take-off and landing, to conform to his requirements aimed at noise reduction. Subsection (5) gives the same powers to airport chiefs to be directed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, and his staff, are not pilots; they do not fly aircraft themselves. They doubtless seek advice from their technical experts. Let me assure the Minister that pilots already have misgivings on flight limitations that are at present imposed in the interests of reducing noise. It is just when maximum power is required, on take-off, and therefore when maximum safety is achieved, that they are required to reduce power.
Some two years ago I was in the cockpit of a B.O.A.C. 707 as it was taking off from Montreal at night. I remember the captain telling me that if one engine had cut just after his initial take-off, when he was operating under flight noise limitation orders from Montreal airport, it would not have been a very pleasant moment. I do not say that it would have meant disaster, but it would have minimised the factor of safety. These flight noise limitations are not agreeable to pilots. I suggest to the Government that in any directions issued by the Secretary of State affecting operational take-off and landing the Secretary of State should have an obligation to consult with representative pilots' organisations. There are only two of them: the British Airline Pilots' Association and the Guild of Air Pilots. If the requirement for such consultation were written into the Bill it would help to eradicate any threat to safety, indirectly, or inadvertently,

1261
from the Secretary of State's using his powers of direction. I hope I have made myself clear to the Minister. My suggestion is that a requirement for consultations with representative pilots where matters affecting flight operations are concerned, should be written into the Bill.
I come for a moment to Clause 3, which says:
" It shall be the duty of the Authority…to secure that British airlines provide air transport services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand (so far as British airlines may reasonably be expected to provide such services) "—
this is the important provision—
" at the lowest charges consistent with a high standard of safety in operating the services and an economic return to efficient operators ".
That seems to me to burst wide open the IATA unanimity rule. The noble Lord is probably aware of what that rule is, but in case he is not I will tell him in a sentence. It is a rule that means that the fare levels settled by IATA must be levels unanimously agreed; and of course that rule protects the least efficient operator and the uneconomic operator. It gives him a chance of continuing his business life.
Our airline operators, our two Corporations, send senior representatives to the IATA Conference, and if those representatives report back to the C.A.A. that they feel that the levels of fares proposed by IATA are not the lowest possible for efficiency and safe operation, as I see it they must, under the Bill, hold out firmly against the IATA unanimity rule. I hope the Minister will clear that particular point, and if it bursts open the IATA unanimity rule nobody will be more pleased than myself.
The final point I want to touch on is Clause 39 which opens a way for a B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. possible merger in the future. There have in the past been failures in co-operation between the two Corporations. There has been co-operation to some degree—common medical services and various other common services—but there could have been more co-operation in the past. The creation of the Airways Board gets rid of those weaknesses of the past, and as regards amalgamation I would ask the Government to go very easy, having regard to the fact that those weaknesses are now
1262
eradicated. Go very easy. There is no heaven sent merit in size for the sake of size. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are so different in many ways. The B.E.A. market for passengers and sales is a different one from that of B.O.A.C. One is short range; B.O.A.C. is long range. The equipment for the two Corporations is different. B.E.A. must have equipment suitable for short and medium range and B.O.A.C. for long range. Pilot training is different. Engineering and maintenance are very different. A B.E.A. aircraft comes in from Stockholm at 3 o'clock in the morning and has to be made ready to travel to, say, Edinburgh at 5 or 6 o'clock that morning. A B.O.A.C. aircraft comes in from the other end of the world and has a clear time ahead for its engineering maintenance.
The Corporation's functions, equipment and personnel are very different. Above all, the risk I see in an amalgamation is a loss of morale and pride by the personnel of the respective Corporations. The day before yesterday I flew back to this country in a B.E.A. Trident and I was speaking to the captain on this very point. He said he hoped that those in authority would be very careful before they promoted a complete amalgamation, because B.E.A. (and I can speak only for B.E.A., having been in the past a member of the Board for some ten years) has built up a tremendous morale—and I expect B.O.A.C. has done the same—within its ranks, flying and ground. One would hate to see that morale cracked or wasted by an amalgamation which really would seem to bring little practical benefit. The noble Lords, Lord Harvey of Prestbury and Lord Kings Norton, and the noble Lord who last spoke dealt with aircraft procurement. It seemed to me a subject rather wide of the Bill. I should dearly love to be able to discuss it, but I confine myself to the main provisions of the Bill, which I repeat is a good one but capable of improvement; and I trust that three points I have put forward to the Minister and to your Lordships will be given consideration at a later stage.
1.55 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I hope I shall not be regarded

1263
as giving a hostage to fortune if I preface my remarks by saying that I have a considerable regard for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, because I believe that he always gives a straight answer to questions that he is asked, and I have not so far been able to obtain an answer to certain questions that I have asked. I hope that to-day, when he comes to reply—and I am quite sure he will—he will include the three that I intend putting to him among the list of those answered; and of course if they are satisfactory answers, that will be splendid. The three matters I wish to raise to-day are, first, the structure of international air fares; second, charter flights; and third, the Civil Aviation Authority, which, so far as I am concerned, are the three aspects of civil aviation with which I have been able to deal.
In this House five months ago, on February 18, I raised the matter of air transport fares. There seems hardly any need to repeat that there is considerable consumer dissatisfaction with the structure of international air fares, and in particular the effect that this has had in discriminating arbitrarily between different classes of travellers and between travellers from different countries, and in restricting the choice of fares and services available. All sorts of inducements have been, are being, and I imagine will be, offered to all travellers, with one exception, the exception being the traveller who uses normal scheduled services.
I asked five months ago why there should be this discrimination, and I have gone on asking ever since. Nobody would deny the increasing consumer dissatisfaction. Equally, I think, people would agree that the IATA unanimity rule is calculated to suit the convenience of the smaller and weaker airlines, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will not mind my adding my humble (and I use that word in the right sense) support to his great experience in condemnation of this unanimity rule. I believe that under the official protection of Governments the airlines have been building up a deliberate system of discrimination between classes of passenger. On January 7 last The Times stated:
" There is no reason why airlines should not sell wholesale at a different price from retail or give significant discounts to those who book
1264
early, or fly when no-one else wants to fly, or are prepared to stand by. But what the airlines have been trying to do is to create artificial classes which will generate new traffic at lower fares without allowing regular travellers to enjoy these fares."
From the ordinary consumer's point of view, the first major gap in the range of services is the lack of cheaper fares available direct to the public without strings on the main routes served by scheduled airlines. I am asking, not that benefits shall be curtailed but that all air travellers shall have at least a small share.
My Lords, in this House on March 10 the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told me:
"…the Secretary of State cannot make recommendations to the International Air Transport Association, but he can and does make recommendations to the British air lines which are members of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/3/71; col. 58.]
On June 17, as reported at column 696 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said:
"…there is a growing awareness of the need for scheduled services to be able to cater for the more popular demand, if I may so describe it, as well as for the normal scheduled travellers."
I assume that that remark means catering for all travellers. As the House knows, at the present IATA Conference in Montreal, B.O.A.C. is raising the question of cheaper fares on the North Atlantic route. On July 1, as reported at column 449, of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told us:
" the meeting has been arranged to discuss the introduction of lower fares on the North Atlantic routes, and B.O.A.C. have the Government's full support in seeking such fares."
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we all hope that such support will be extended to other routes. Gradually and at last it is being admitted publicly that the IATA unanimity rule is calculated to suit the convenience of the weaker and smaller airlines. Perhaps—who knows?—we are now within reasonable distance of the abolition of the unanimity.
My Lords, may I now come to the question of charter flights? The Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill we are discussing to-day says that the Civil Aviation Authority:
" will take over functions now exercised by the Air Transport Licensing Board and the Air Registration Board together with a range of

1265
functions at present performed by the Secretary of State. It will undertake the licensing of air transport services and will regulate the safety of civil aviation operations and the airworthiness of the aircraft employed."
On July 1, I asked the Government whether they were aware that the charter rules were being flouted so that cheap regular fares to all countries throughout the world were available to everyone. In the London Evening Standard on Monday, July 5, there appeared a short article which I should like to quote.
The heading was:
" ' Shop ' cuts air fares by half "
and the article was written by Jill Palmer, whom I do not know. The article said:
" Cut-price airline tickets went on sale to the public today offering flights all over the world at just over half the standard rates. In defiance of the rules laid down by the scheduled airlines a shop opened in Chelsea, King's Road, today offering airline tickets to everywhere at only three clays' notice. Discount Air Travel Centre buy scats in bulk from the scheduled airlines and chartered firms. They resell them to members of the public for just over half the price and even then are making a profit themselves. Customers do not have to join any club or pay a membership fee. They just sign a form that they are not employed by British travel agents or any scheduled airline. The company claims this is to safeguard airlines and charter firms and that they, themselves, have found a way round the cut-price rules and cannot be prosecuted.
Fares range from £35 return to Malaga to a round trip to Sydney. Australia, for £395 as against the scheduled fare of £629. The firm can also arrange hotel accommodation but wants to concentrate on the air tickets.
' By buying in bulk we can get the tickets cheaply, we are doing everyone a favour. We buy up the unsold tickets from the airlines and sell them to people cheaply,' said Mr. Smith. The chairman said: ' I certainly would not be a part of this if it was breaking any regulation. It is not breaking the law in any sense.
' My involvement is to promote cheaper travel for people who would not otherwise be able to see the world.
' There is a demand for cheap air tickets and our plan to commercialise this has been under discussion for about a month. I see this shop as the start of something much bigger and eventually we hope to have agencies overseas as well.' "
Some of your Lordships may have seen on Wednesday, July 7, the story of an Evening Standard reporter who took advantage of one of these tickets. What I want to bring to the attention of the House is something which was in The
1266
Guardian newspaper yesterday,. Thursday, July 8. This stated:
" The Government regulations allow charter operators to offer the complete package, transport and hotel for the same rate as the ordinary scheduled air fare. Mr. Smith's firm takes the money for the charter fare, but gives passengers an invoice for the hotel voucher that goes with the air ticket. And this is one bill they never have to pay.
The hotel voucher, he insists, is perfectly genuine. ' It'll be for some pension in the back of beyond, riddled with lice; they won't be comfortable, but they could stay there.' He is not concerned about the standard of accommodation because his customers have no intention of staying there. The voucher is provided as a ' perfectly legal ' device for charging less than the scheduled airline fare.
' Everybody's done it for years; our only crime is to open a shop and bring it out into the open.'
But Mr. Smith is only too ready to admit that other dodges may not be strictly legal and he considers their existence as further justification for his own operation. ' I don't believe there's a single charter flight leaving this country—or very few—that's absolutely legal.' "
My Lords, my quarrel is not, with the Discount Air Travel Centre nor with charter flights but with the system which brings them about and indeed makes them inevitable. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is probably aware that in the Guardian today there is a statement to the effect that
" A London discount air travel firm which advertises ' 50 per cent. off ' some fares is being investigated, the Department of Trade and Industry said yesterday. The firm is Discount Air Travel Centre in King's Road, Chelsea."
My Lords, this has become a nonsense and brought both the Government and the charter rules into contempt. Yet all that the Government have to say on the matter, according to the Financial Times of July 6, is that the Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing the "whole complex field" of air charters and no changes in policy can be announced at this stage. Well, my Lords, we can all only hope that the new Civil Aviation Authority will look at this whole aspect and sort it out quickly. I hope that something will be done by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in advance.
My Lords, it is always difficult if one complains about cheap fare facilities being available because then it is assumed that one is a spoil-sport who

1267
wishes to deprive people of such things. I am not a spoil-sport and I do not wish to deprive anyone of anything. The success of the charter companies and of charter flights has proved that if the fares are right the traffic will be there. The ordinary scheduled airline traveller has suffered unfairly financially because of the over-capacity of the airlines. This is now admitted on the North Atlantic routes. It has been admitted in America for several years. I see no reason for, and certainly no justice in, the constant and reiterated refusal of airlines and Government to allow one class of traveller, the one travelling as an ordinary scheduled airline passenger, to participate in cheaper fares for all. I am hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will agree that if the cheaper charter fares have produced the charter traffic it is equally obvious that if there are cheaper scheduled fares the scheduled traffic will emerge. I think that some consideration should be given to this, and I trust that the Civil Aviation Authority will take the same view.
Mr. John Carter, the air correspondent of The Times, writing about cheap air travel on July 3, said:
" Such travel should be available to anyone prepared to plan ahead, and the Government has a double duty in this regard. First, to ensure that it is available and, second, to protect the public from abuse by profiteers. The solution is perfectly simple. There should be adoption, and enforcement in due time, of the terms set cut in Clause 26 of the Civil Aviation Bill, now in the Committee stage at Westminster."
My Lords, as to how long ahead it is essential for travellers to plan is obviously a matter for prolonged negotiation and discussion. I believe the B.O.A.C. Early Bird system demands ninety days; the Discount Air Travel Centre can do it within three days or less, while I seem to remember that Mr. Freddie Laker was talking of daily flights to the U.S.A. in the high season and four flights weekly in the off season with no waiting at all—you just went to the airport and bought your ticket. I think my recollection is right on this last point, but I have no notes on it. But it is increasingly clear that there ought now to be a major reappraisal by all Governments of the whole balance of air transport effort. This is what I asked for on February 18 last.
1268
I come now to my third and last section—a brief one. When the Civil Aviation Authority is set up, will the Government designate one member of the Board as a member for consumer affairs? I think it is a frequent enough practice for members of boards to be given specific responsibilities, and if the Government would agree to this suggestion much good will would accrue both to them and to the Authority. I know, of course, that Clause 3(2) provides for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority with which the Authority will have a statutory duty to comply. I appreciate also that such guidance, among other things, is intended to make it clear that the Authority will consult as widely as possible with all those who are interested. But even though the consumer bodies are included in this range of interest, it is not enough. Anyone who sits, or has sat, on public boards knows that the expertise in dealing with consumer affairs is on one side—that of the civil servants or the secretariat. I would hasten to say that I do not believe, and I am not for one moment stating, that the expertise is unfair. But we would all agree that the general traveller or consumer has not got it. I hope the House will have noted that I have deliberately avoided saying "consumer complaints". There are many consumer matters affecting travellers that are not complaints, and the sooner we get away from this old-fashioned concept—on both sides of the discussion—the better.
I think there must be what I would call a skilled or professional advocate for the travelling public; someone with the expertise necessary to present such matters to the Authority: in short, a member with that specific and designated function. Here, with a new Authority, is the chance to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his opening remarks said that powers had been given to the Government to appoint members to the Board, so there would seem to be no obstacle there. I was glad to receive in advance the powerful support of my noble friend Lord Beswick about some mention of consumer interests in the Bill, which I asked about before on June 23, and of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
So, my Lords, I have asked for three things to be done when this Bill becomes

1269
an Act: first, for the structure of international air fares to be reorganised and for the disappearance of the IATA unanimity rule; second, for the regulation (if that is the right word) of charter flights, so that neither Government nor regulations are brought into contempt; third, for the designation of one member of the Authority as being specifically for consumer affairs. And I wish the Bill a speedy progress through the remaining stages.
2.15 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I should like to make a few observations about this important measure which we are considering today. I, for one, am glad that this Bill visualises the possibility of a merger between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It would seem to me that this would bring about complete economies, because there would need to be fewer spares, and that type of thing, and costs tend to rise with the increased number of types of aircraft in operation. If this amalgamation were carried out then more routes could be put into Caledonian/B.U.A., because it is possible to argue that the number of routes they have been given at the present time may not be sufficient to enable them to be viable. Therefore that would be one advantage of a possible merger.
I believe it is estimated that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. combined would be about the size of T.W.A., which operates approximately five aircraft types. Therefore, they would be operating about half the number of types that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. operate at the present moment. It is also estimated that T.W.A. gets about twice as much work out of its fleet as the two British Corporations put together. If I might give an example of—as I see it—an advantage to the traveller, there need be no reason why he should not fly from London to Frankfurt in a VC 10. The other day I had a speaking engagement in Dublin and I flew back in a Boeing from Dublin to London Airport. I am a great supporter of the Trident; I think it is a wonderful machine. I spend most of my life in it. But if in fact there were to be this amalgamation there would be no reason why aircraft at present used for flying the Atlantic should not be used for long hauls in Europe.
1270
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick—and I tended to agree with what he said—made some remarks about the powers of the British Airways Board. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, that the Minister has put some of our fears at rest in the remarks that he made at the beginning of this debate. Nevertheless, I think it is true if we read the Bill that it could be argued that the power of decision—I am speaking now about the British Airways Board in particular—rests too much with the Department, and that therefore either the chairman of the Board may be frustrated or (and I think this is even more important) it may be difficult to attract a first class man as chairman if he feels that the Department will be breathing down his neck too much. However, as I have said, some of our fears have been put at rest by the remarks made by the Minister. Nevertheless, these provisions are still in the Bill, and I think this is something we should bear in mind.
So far as I can see, there is no provision for the airlines to raise money I from the public. At a time when there is a major restructuring of the industry this might perhaps have been desirable. In this way we might achieve what I would describe as a "B.P." situation, which would, I think, at least be popular on this side of the House. As I understand it, the airlines cannot even go to the market, like local authorities, for their money, and therefore this will continue to be a major burden on the Treasury. As I see it, if times get easier and the airlines do better—I think at the moment they are going through a very difficult period indeed—and there was an amalgamated corporation called British Airways, the British public might be very glad to invest their money in it, in the same way as they do in B.P. I think it is a matter for consideration that they cannot even go on the market, as local authorities can.
Finally—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who is making his notes will be glad to know that I have almost finished—at the risk of being slightly out of order, but I did speak of this in the Third London Airport debate, I hope that the Government will go slowly with Foulness. I was thankful that Cublington was ruled out, but do go slowly with Foulness. I have read a figure of £500

1271
million; I am sure it will escalate to £1,000 million, and we might at the end of that time be left with a ghastly white elephant. Far better to put that money into research and development on the aircraft that the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, was talking about, than to sink this vast fortune into something which might turn into a white elephant; and while it may be slightly out of order to talk about Foulness, it is very relevant to the future of the British aircraft industry and civil aviation in general.
2.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, it is not often that one has the privilege of speaking on a major Bill on a Friday afternoon, and I think it is a tribute to those interested in aviation that it has attracted 12 speakers to-day. Those who have followed this Bill through its long and exhaustive examination in another place would, I think, agree that despite certain doctrinal arguments that tended to creep in from time to time the Bill received a general welcome from all quarters, and I think it would be true to say that that welcome has been repeated to-day. Its presence was I believe particularly welcome, first, because it removes that uncertainty that had hung over the industry since the Edwards Commitee was first set up in 1967, and, secondly, because within its general framework the Bill appears to offer the chance of an effective and positive instrument to guide the future administration and direction of the British aviation industry.
The need for the Bill now and the good one hopes will flow from it I believe is more pronounced if one looks at the present state of health of civil air transport. After many years of consistent growth of passenger traffic, suddenly we see that the industry to-day is faced with a recession, one hopes a temporary recession, affecting both sides of the Atlantic. Under such conditions, and with Her Majesty's Government having set up the Second Force last August, as recommended by the Edwards Committee, I find it personally a little disturbing to find the official Opposition in another place—and I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in fact did not repeat it to-day—threatening to dismantle the Second Force should the present Opposition return
1272
to power. That, in practice, is what they are saying when they make a threat to withdraw the wholesale routes that have been recently granted to the Second Force. It would be difficult, I believe, to find a more destructive line of opposition than this, or one more foreign to the spirit of the White Paper on the Edwards Committee which supported the birth of a strong independent carrier. The argument over the Second Force and the threat that hangs over their now, we hope, viable network is one which one hopes, with the coming of the new and strong C.A.A., will be buried in its political grave for ever.
For these directly concerned with the industry, the setting up of the new C.A.A. under this Bill is obviously a matter of crucial importance. From the start of the Bill's passage in another place, one detected a whiff of criticism that the framework of the C.A.A. under the Bill would be too close to the direct influence of ministerial or Whitehall interference. I know my noble friend has already mentioned this in introducing the Bill. It is not beyond people's memories that the then Minister of Aviation in February, 1965, stood up and announced that the independent sector would be granted no more scheduled services but would be allowed to expand by itself in the field of the inclusive tour market, and within a year of the pronouncement of that clear and positive policy the policy turned a somersault. One hopes that such a situation, with the presence of a strong C.A.A., will be avoided in the future. It is, I believe a considerable credit mark to the Government that when the Bill was in Committee in another place a series of Amendments were made to meet that criticism and to try to create a more independent and thus strong C.A.A. This simple objective is, I am sure, one which few would disagree with, and one which no doubt the House will wish to examine carefully in detail at the Committee stage.
Of all the changes that will be made with the setting up of the new C.A.A., one which, I am sure, will be viewed with a general feeling of regret, a regret which has already been expressed to-day, will be the absorption of the long respected and proven old Air Registration Board. The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, as the unpaid Chairman of the Air Registration Board, and his colleagues, were of

1273
course deeply concerned at any change both in the working and the reputation of the Board. I am glad that although the Government have felt unable to keep the Air Registration Board as a separate entity they are anxious to disturb the old Board as little as possible, even to the extent of retaining its old initials and substituting a name which I believe many of us will find both cumbersome and difficult to remember. I hope very much that the old Air Registration Board will remain as effective under its new colours as it has been in the past.
Concern has already been expressed to-day and by certain British airline carriers about the running costs of the new C.A.A., which one understands are intended to be passed on in their entirety to the industry. I do not think it has been mentioned before that it is estimated that this cost may run at £34 million a year and that the cost to B.O.A.C. could be up to £l½ million. The concern centres not only on the extra cost to the carriers, coming at a time when the state of the industry is experiencing a particularly lean time, but also the effect it would have on the foreign airline operators that one assumes will be charged as well. Perhaps my noble friend could comment and deal with this point of the likely cost of the C.A.A. and the cost the industry will probably have to absorb. The powers of the C.A.A. and its working relationship with the Government will, I am sure, be probed in detail in Committee. I hope we shall also have a chance to probe the Government on the future of a national airports policy, on the setting up of a consumer bureau, on the aspects of safety, and also, I hope, on the system of appeals by air travel operators to the county court which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has already mentioned.
If I may turn briefly to the second major objective of the Bill, the setting up of the new British Airways Board, similar concern to that expressed of the independence of the C.A.A. has been voiced about the British Airways Board. I am advised, as I am sure other noble Lords have been advised, that under the Bill the Minister will be increasing his reserve powers over the new Board, that is, increasing the powers that at present exist over the two air Corporations.
1274
Some adjustment to this was in fact made by the Government on Third Reading of the Bill in another place, and perhaps again it is a matter that the Committee could explore later.
The setting up of the C.A.A. will have an important bearing, not only on the air transport industry but also on the aero space industry. This industry, as my noble friend well knows, despite excellent export results in this last year, seems now to be facing the reality of shrinking from its former prestige position as a leading aero space industry; and as has been emphasised today, one has only to look at what is in the pipeline to see this. This has come as no overnight surprise. Both industry and the Government I think saw perhaps a decade ago that the cost of the research and development project had began to go beyond normal resources. Efforts were made then to overcome this difficulty by collaborative efforts with our European partners. It is one of the tragedies of the industry that, as yet, the short history of the collaborative project has shown only a minority of successes and a majority of expensive failures. One hopes that results will improve and that not only can we collaborate with a partner in a European industry but also collaborate with friends across the Atlantic both in the aeroplane industry and in the aero engine industry.
Turning briefly to Concorde, it would I believe be of interest to know, if my noble friend had time this afternoon to tell us, how soon the evaluation by the two national carriers will be complete and how the present trials are progressing. The industry to-day needs support for investigation, I believe desperately, of future projects, and I would certainly go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has said as to the future potential of the project known as STOL or in other quarters as "Cutol", and in some irreverent quarters as "Dettol". This project offers the advantages of a greater capacity at airports and the possibility of lower noise factors, both of which seem to meet the future needs of aviation. I hope that the Government will consider seriously backing an investigation and study on STOL, perhaps as a joint enterprise between B.A.C. and Hawker-Siddeley.

1275
My Lords, I should like to end by recalling the words of wisdom of the Edwards Committee. It was stated as one of the principal recommendations that the long term objective should be to satisfy the individual customer at the lowest price consistent with an economic return on investment, and at a level of safety equal to the best in the world. I hope very much that this Bill will help those involved to strive to achieve this splendid objective.
2.33 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, the last speaker in a longish debate in your Lordships House on a Friday afternoon ought to be brief, and I will do my best. There are only one or two points that I want to make, and I will go through them as quickly as I can because I am looking forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The criticisms, or remarks, which I have of this Bill are best kept for a Committee stage, and I shall therefore confine myself to two or three points of a general nature. The first is that this is I think the first piece of legislation in any important aeronautical country to make specific provision for the control of aircraft noise. A similar Bill came before your Lordships originally when the former Government were in power; and all credit to them for that!
The other point I have to make, reverting to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, concerns the question of whether or not this new body, the Civil Aviation Authority, will be financially self-sufficient. I, too, see difficulties in making the National Air Traffic Control Service self-supporting financially. Navigation service charges are already levied at some airports, but I do not think they go any way to covering the cost of the exercise, and I shall be glad to hear the Government's views on that point. My final point, again a general one, is merely to say that the success of the new Board will, in my opinion, be governed to some extent by the calibre of people called upon to lead it. If those people are of the same calibre as have hitherto led the Air Registration Board I believe that we have nothing to fear.
2.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, and I
1276
do not think my forecast that the Bill would get a general welcome from the House has been falsified, though there have been some hesitations. Perhaps the most notable hesitation was from the noble Lord who I think is as ignorant as I am about civil aviation, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and who felt perhaps that we had tried to put too many different functions into the one Authority. But I think that that was the recommendation of the Edwards Committee, and the purpose of the Bill generally is to put these functions under one Authority, in the belief—and in my view the correct belief—that they will be more efficiently carried out.
I have been asked a large number of questions, and I do not believe, even with the flattery that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, applied to me, that I can answer them all. But I will do my best to answer some. I must ask to be excused from answering any points made by noble Lords on both sides of the House about procurement, because I think that procurement is outside the terms of the Second Reading of the Bill. I will only say this if I may to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. The Rayner Report and the consequent putting of defence procurement under my own Department, the Ministry of Defence, have put on the Department a great responsibility for the aircraft industry and the actual production of aircraft. Nevertheless, there will be a very great need on the part of my Department to liaise with the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is my intention, as I know it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary for Trade and Industry, that we should work closely together. I am quite sure that this is the right thing to do with defence procurement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked a number of questions, of which he was good enough to give me notice, so I have no excuse for not answering them. He asked me first of all how far the members of the Authority will involve themselves in detail. My Lords, the Authority will have between six and twelve members—probably nearer six. I think perhaps the noble Lord was confused with the Airworthiness Requirements Board, which will probably have between twelve and twenty members. Clearly, the

1277
members of the Authority will have to specialise to some extent, and it may be that such matters as air transport licensing will be dealt with by a small quorum of the Board with officials and with pre-hearings as proposed in the 1969 White Paper. On this basis, only major matters would come before the full Board, but all this will be spelt out in the regulations under Clause 5.
The second point which he raised was why was there so much detail in Clause 2 and no mention of consumers. This point was raised also by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Clause 2 spells out the functions of the Authority in some detail, because otherwise it would not be clear that the Authority will have not only the functions conferred upon it by this Act but also other functions in the field of air safety which will be conferred upon it by amendments to the Air Navigation Orders and the regulations made under the 1949 Act. But for this, the very important safety functions would not be mentioned, as such, in the Bill at all. The consumer function, on the other hand, is not mentioned specifically because all the functions mentioned are, in one way or another, consumer functions. The Authority's duty to have regard to consumer interests will be amplified in the guidance which is to be given under Clause 3(2). I am perfectly prepared to discuss this point further in Committee, and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will raise it, and others.
On the whole question of consumer interest, the noble Baroness said that when I was asked a question I gave a direct answer. I would certainly give her a direct answer, and, if possible, I would satisfy her at once, because I know that she is extremely persistent and it is much wiser to satisfy her, if at all possible, before she gets into her stride. In this case, I wonder whether it is always the right way of tackling things to appoint somebody to a Board with a specific responsibility. I have never felt that, in your Lordships' House, it was right to have people here representing some particular interest. I think that, in a sense, if they are representatives what they say is less highly regarded because it is known that they have this particular
1278
interest and are representing it. So I am a little doubtful whether it necessarily serves the purpose of the noble Baroness to press for having on the Authority somebody who represents purely the consumers' interests.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to clear up this point. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord says, but usually on boards there are members who are responsible for financial affairs, or whatever it may be. I am not seeking a known consumer on this Board, but somebody with a responsibility in respect of consumers.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is something which the Authority itself should very properly look after. I do not think that anybody in your Lordships' House would ever dissent from the noble Baroness in her view that the consumers' interests are of the highest importance in the Authority and in all the work that it does. If that is the view of the noble Baroness, I do not think we shall have to quarrel about anything, and I am very glad about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked whether it made sense for the Authority to be given the objective of becoming self-supporting, and Lord Beswick had some doubts as to some of the arrangements which were being made. I should have thought, that generally speaking, your Lordships would agree that it is right in principle that those who use the Authority's services should be prepared to pay for them, and that this should apply to all its customers, including my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Of course, the bulk of the Authority's expenditure will arise through the provision of air navigational services and through its comprehensive responsibilities for regulating the air transport industry. Successive Governments have endorsed a policy of full cost recovery in air navigation services, so we start from there. We think it is possible, and right, that services should be paid for.
About the £50 million, I would only say that this, of course, is very much the upper limit, which is only likely to be relevant if it is decided to value the assets to be transferred to the Authority on a basis other than written down historical costs. As my right honourable

1279
friend said in another place, there are important arguments for departing from this traditional method and adopting a formula which takes account of subsequent inflation. Of course, we accept that any significant increase in the initial debt will defer the time by which the Authority can be expected to break even. I think that goes without saying. Certainly I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to the arguments—and I think powerful arguments—which the noble Lord and others have produced this afternoon on that point.
I spoke at some length in my opening speech about appeals. If the noble Lord will allow me, perhaps we may leave that until the Committee stage if he has any Amendments he would like to suggest on that issue. There was some criticism, from him and, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, about the phrasing in Clause 3(1)(b) of the Second Force airline, and the conclusions that one might draw from that. I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, omitted to read the words as carefully as I have been advised to read them. I hope he will notice that the words are, "At least one major British airline". The words at least "are of considerable consequence in this context. At present there is only one major independent airline, but there could be more than one, and this paragraph does not say which particular airline, or airlines, are to be given opportunities. This will be a matter for the Authority to judge. Certainly it does not mean that there is only one and should only be one, and that one should always get everything.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree that we ought to discuss this at Committee stage, but I hope between now and then the noble Lord will have a look at this again, because, as I said, I was only trying to be helpful.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope I was not responding in a churlish manner.
LORD BESWICK: Not at all.
LORD CARRINGTON: That was the last thing I wanted to do. Of course we will look at it. I think perhaps the situation is riot quite so black as the
1280
noble Lord paints it. He also asked whether or not there should be more powerful sanctions in Clause 29 with regard to the noise provisions. The sort of airfields which we are concerned with are really all owned by public bodies—the British Airports Authority, local authorities and so on. I should have thought they were the sort of people who would be expected to comply with the law, and it really would not be either necessary or realistic to consider imposing fines upon those sort of authorities. Again, we can discuss this on Committee stage.
The other question that the noble Lord gave me notice of, and also asked in his speech, was the question of whether this was an exercise in the Fulton philosophy, and whether there really was going to be a cash and manpower saving. Of course this streamlines the machinery of Government by distinguishing between the making of policy, for which Parliament and the Government are responsible, and the implementation of that policy, for which the Authority will be responsible. Therefore, Ministers of the day will, under this legislation, be relieved of the responsibility for day-to-day decisions, and they will be able to concentrate on the longer term policy implications. Secondly, the Authority will have both comprehensive responsibilities and a highly skilled and professional staff—which I will come to again in a moment—who also, through their continuity of experience, will enable the best decisions to be taken. I do not think that we would purport to say that this idea would reduce the demand on the resources required to regulate civil aviation. I do not think that is the object of the exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, have pointed out how important safety is in all this. It would be misleading and wrong to say that we could cut back in an area in which public safety plays a very great part. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about the staff, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood. The staff will be transferred to the Authority and will cease to be civil servants, but my right honourable friend is very anxious that the staff concerned should not be disgruntled, and he has

1281
given undertakings that their terms and conditions of employment should not, in any circumstances, be worsened.
The third point he made was the consumer point, which I have answered, even if rather inadequately. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye made a plea for caution on the question of amalgamation of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., and my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine rather went in the other direction and said that this might be rather a good idea. I think I can assure both noble Lords—and I am sure it will satisfy neither of them—that we are going to be very cautious about this. In any event, such a change would have to be recommended by the Airways Board and would have to be in the interests of efficiency. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no power to make an order dissolving the Corporation unless the Airways Board has so recommended in its last report under Clause 39. My noble friend also asked about consultations with BALPA. So far as the Authority is concerned, Clause 27 provides for the appointment of pilots' representatives to the Airworthiness Requirements Board, whom the Authority will of course consult. As regards noise, the Secretary of State will consult BALPA, as he does now, about the matters for which he retains responsibility.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, can the Secretary of State deal with the point about reporting to the Secretary of State any difference between the Authority and the A.R.B.?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I thought my noble friend made an interesting point there, and I should like to take it back and discuss it with my right honourable friend. Perhaps we can discuss it at the Committee stage. Although I do not know the ins and outs of it, it seemed to me to be an entirely valid point. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, spoke about the charter rules in some detail, and I was very interested because I learned a great deal from what she had to say. This matter has been very much in the news lately, highlighted by the opening this week of the shop for the sale of cheap air travel. Under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act 1960, the
1282
sale of a ticket at a cut price or to an ineligible passenger may not constitute an offence unless and until a flight is operated in contravention of the Act, and those who by selling tickets provide facilities for carriage on such a flight can then be prosecuted.
It is our intention to continue to take action whenever appropriate, and I hope that notice will be taken in the appropriate quarters of the recent court cases in which significant fines have been imposed. It is not of course an offence for a person to buy an inclusive tour and not to occupy the hotel accommodation that is provided in the package, so long as the price he pays is above the minimum laid down. The Department of Trade and Industry ate looking into whether the person concerned in Chelsea is charging the right prices or is otherwise procuring breaches of the airline licences. I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Baroness either, but certainly I will look into what she said, and I say again that it may be necessary to discuss this at the Committee stage. So also with the question of air fares.
In pursuing the principal objective in Clause 3(1)(a), the Authority will clearly have to take account of the international implications and will have to work very closely with the Secretary of State. The Authority will have the expertise on air fares, and will clearly have an important role to play in advising British airlines of the line they should follow in IATA. But the Secretary of State remains responsible for approving IATA tariffs and for any international negotiations which might follow in this context and if necessary, the Secretary of State could give a direction to the Authority under Clause 4(3)(b). The policy of the Government is to control fares only to the extent necessary to ensure that all sections of consumers, who sometimes have conflicting interests, can go on enjoying the air services they want at the lowest price consistent with safety and with the reasonable profitability of the airlines.
I think that probably deals with most of the direct questions that were put to me. I suspect that we shall have a number of Amendments at the next stage and, having heard the Second Reading debate and having greatly profited from hearing the speeches of noble Lords who

1283
know a great deal about these matters, I look forward to having an interesting and equally profitable Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
2.55 p.m.
EARL JELLTCOE: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like, if I may, to take the unusual step of starting with a quotation. For brevity, I will omit a good deal. It is as follows:
" My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill to authorise the increase of certain pensions. It is quite unnecessary to labour the point that, owing to the great rise in the cost of living during the last few years pensions…which might…have afforded a more adequate means of livelihood…now entirely fail to meet that object. This matter was brought before the Cabinet…. The Bill was introduced into the House of Commons authorising the increase of pensions. That Bill passed through another place and is now before your Lordships…. If this Bill is passed, the total cost…of the increase of pensions is estimated at not more than £850,000 in the first year. The Bill does not provide for the increase of naval and military pensions, but additions to those pensions corresponding to those provided in the Bill will…be made in the ordinary constitutional manner by Order-in-Council and Royal Warrant…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/8/20; cols. 1161–3.]
That quotation was from a speech in this House by Lord Hilton, who was then Minister without Portfolio, nearly fifty-one years ago, in moving the Second Reading of the first Pensions (Increase) Bill in 1920. Add two noughts on to the cost, and a suitable obeisance to the Royal Air Force, and there, on the face of it, we seem to have this year's Bill, too. The Bills are superficially similar, but in practice—and I mean both in principle and in detail—they are in fact utterly and completely different.
I am very glad that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, will be speaking in this Second Reading debate. He has been until recently Chairman of the
1284
Officers' Pension Society. All those who have been in the firing line—in the noble Lord's steady sights; and they include my noble friend Lord Carrington and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—know how much skill, time and sheer dogged energy the noble Lord has deployed in hunting down his Ministerial prey, in furthering the legitimate interests of Armed Forces pensioners. And I am glad that other noble Lords, very well qualified to hold a brief for the civil public service—home and abroad—will be speaking in this debate which I hope (and I shall try not to be an offender) will not be too unnecessarily long.
Before I get down to the Bill, may I say that there is a particular reason why I have pleasure in moving it. First, I believe this to be a good Bill; and not only in parts. Secondly, I believe that the Bill commands wide support from all quarters: we have had more than our normal Lordly ration of Party political business this summer. Thirdly, because it springs from the loins of my own Department—the Civil Service Department. There is a fourth reason, which derives from the third. I should like to acknowledge very warmly the extensive contribution in this sphere, among many others in public service management, which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has made. As my predecessor in both of my jobs, but particularly as my predecessor in the Civil Service Department, he announced early last summer the outlines of a reform which, if returned to office some fifteen days later, his Party would have worked out. Our own changes in some principal respects parallel those reforms very closely indeed, and I am glad to acknowledge the mixed parentage—the hybrid political paternity—of this measure. It is no worse for it.
But, my Lords, the Bill also fulfils pledges that my own Party has been making for quite a long time; and I can tell the House frankly that when we were returned to power this was one of the first subjects on which I called for reports and I put in train a number of rather urgent studies. I think I can claim, I hope without being immodest (and I am claiming no more than mixed parentage for this Bill), that no time at all has been lost in launching this Bill down the Statute Book slipway. I have been very glad here to make much more than a formal

1285
obeisance to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, but he knows as well as I do how much we Ministerial birds of passage owe in this and in other matters to the devoted labours of some very able civil servants.
My Lords, I wish to make it clear that the Bill forms part of a wider strategy of re-examination and reform of all the issues affecting the way people should be treated when they leave the public service. On May 12 I announced to your Lordships' House new and, I think, much improved compensation terms for civil servants on the occasion of premature retirement; that is, for those who have to be retired before the normal retiring age, either on redundancy or on grounds which are new in the Home Civil Service but familiar in the Diplomatic Service; namely, structural grounds or limited efficiency. At the same time—and, although this is not directly relevant to the Bill, I think it is worth mentioning this in this context—we are busily engaged in a deep review of the Civil Service Pension Scheme as a whole. This review is being conducted jointly by management and staff, and similar reviews of the other public service pension schemes are also in train. I cannot say exactly what issues will and will not be covered, and with what result. What I do say is that nothing relevant is excluded from consideration. The sort of issues which are likely to be looked at are of a kind in which I know several noble Lords are interested, such as preservation and transferability, the right level for widows' pensions and so on. All this, of course, relates to the occupational pension schemes of public employees, and is again quite separate from the review of the social security system being conducted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are not, of course, discussing directly any of these matters to-day: we are concerned simply and solely with pensions increases. But I thought it right—and I make no real apology for very briefly mentioning this—to put our particular Bill in this wider context, and to isolate this particular item of the Bill in a rather wider context.
My Lords, may I now return to the content of the Bill itself? It has received a fair meed of publicity, and I think its
1286
main lines are now reasonably familiar. I do not wish to repeat the White Paper, the first twelve paragraphs of which are easily comprehensible even to the most lordly intelligence—I may say that I had a typist's error there: for "lordly", read "lowly". But I will follow its pattern to the extent that the Bill is best described as setting out to do five important things. In the first place, the White Paper explains in detail what a confused and inequitable legacy, a real morass, has been left us as the cumulative effect of the 11 Pensions (Increase) Acts. This is, of course, looking at the efforts of our predecessors of all political complexions with the eyes of the present, which is a most unfair way of passing judgment. But there was no doubt in my mind that the first thing we had to do was to make good the deficiences of the past, both in order to get all pensions at least restored to their original purchasing power and also, and not less important, to iron out most of the anomalies.
Those anomalies are rather horrifying. I instance the Fire Service, though one could take many other examples. For example, a fireman outside London who retired in 1952 with a pension of £326 now has £614, some £50 ahead of his original purchasing power: whilst another who retired with the same record of service eight years later, in 1960, on a pension of £435 now receives £542, £60 below his original purchasing power. Again, a Civil Service clerical officer who retired in 1946 on a pension of £207 is to-day receiving £532, whereas another who retired with the same record of service 18 years later, in 1964, on a pension of £463 is to-day receiving £491. Our first main aim, therefore, was to correct these inherited and, to my mind, grossly unfair distortions. We decided to do so by setting a baseline for the main principle of the reform—the introduction of inflation-proofing—by first restoring all pensions to their original purchasing power as on that date. The chosen date is April 1, 1969, which is the operative date of the last Act and the beginning of the first review period under the new system. Somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of the pensioners will receive one of these once-for-all or levelling-up increases. Most of these increases will range between 1 and 17 per cent., but some are in fact a great deal higher. They are of course additional

1287
to the increases given as a result of 1969–71 variations, which are 18 per cent.
The second main feature of the Bill is to compensate for the rise in the cost of living since the baseline date, April 1, 1969. This is the first review, and this increase is added to the once-for-all increase which I have just mentioned, and the two will be paid together with effect from September 1 this year. This produces some very sizeable increases overall. For instance, if I may be permitted to quote this example in your Lordships' House, a Grade I Ambassador who retired on a maximum pension of £3,500 in 1962 (and I know that I can say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, as he retired a great deal later) will now be getting £4,004. This will be raised this autumn by 32·2 per cent., to £5,295. By the same token, a private soldier who retired on the 1945 code originally with a pension of £1·32 a week now receives £3·35. He will be due, following the principles of the Bill, for an increase of 35·5 per cent., to £4·56. I quote those just as fairly typical examples of the implications of this Bill which are not inconsiderable for those concerned.
There are one or two important details to fill in here while I am talking about the first review. The strict objective would be to compensate for the rise in the cost of living between April 1, 1969, and April 1, 1971, and this was our intention when we announced our plans in outline in the Statement I made in your Lordships' House in November last. We also explained then that we could not pay out at the higher rates before September. I had examined this very carefully because it at first surprised me that this five-months' gap was in fact necessary. But I came to the conclusion, having looked at it, that it was unavoidable for mechanistic reasons. Nevertheless, I was disturbed about this five-months' gap and my own misgivings were reinforced very powerfully by representations of a frank and forceful kind from the pensioners' organisations. This I believe was a weakness in our arrangements, but it has now been put right by the addition of a margin, which takes account of the five-months' gap, built into the increases to be awarded this year.
The next point I should like to touch on while dealing with the first review
1288
period is that all qualified pensioners who retired within it, that is to say, right up to March 31, 1971 are going to get an increase this autumn. This is quite new and by previous standards at least a fairly startling innovation. Under the Acts of the past, there was a distinctly harsh and inflexible cut-off system which prevented anyone who had retired immediately before the Act—latterly some 21 months before—from getting any increase at all. This, coupled with the interval between Acts, meant that some pensioners had to wait up to five years for their first increases. We have imported the flexible principle of a cost of living "trigger". At reviews there will be increases so long as costs have risen by 4 per cent., and anyone who retires within the review period will likewise get an increase provided there has been a rise in the cost of living of at least 4 per cent. between the period of his retirement and the end of the review period as a whole. At a period of less aggravated inflation no doubt this 4 per cent. trigger would exclude some pensioners who retire within the review period from any increase at their first review; but the machinery is there and I believe that this is an important advance.
My Lords, that brings me to the third main feature of the Bill. Having got this year's increase out of the way, its provisions require the Government to conduct further reviews every two years starting in 1973, with the same objective of maintaining purchasing power. Doubtless, this year's increases, which will be very substantial (as I hope I have substantiated), will be in the forefront of most pensioners' minds at the moment. But some of the most thoughtful letters which we have received in my Department (Lord Shackleton's old Department) have shown that these further assurances of when the next increase will be coming along and of how it will be assessed—assurances of a kind which have been so conspicuously lacking under the present dispensation, assurances which build a predictability into the system which it has hitherto totally lacked—are even more highly valued.
The fourth main feature of the Bill is the power it gives to reduce by Statutory Instrument the qualifying age at which increases may be earned. This has no effect on the retirement age in the various public services, as noble Lords will recognise.

1289
It is, however, a change which is of particular interest to those services on the civil side, notably the Police, the Fire and Prison Services, as well as, of course, the Armed Forces, in which retirement on pension at an earlier age than 60 is quite common. At the moment those who retire on pension at a younger age still have to wait more or less patiently until they are 60 before they can receive increases unless there are special circumstances, such as their being chronically sick or widowed or having some exceptional reason for qualifying on the ground that they cannot earn a proper living.
My Lords, the present Government were pledged in their Election Manifesto—and, I believe, rightly so—to this lowering of the pension threshold to 55. All I would say is that the principle is well and truly embedded in the Bill, in Clause 3(8). We have made it clear that this principle will be consummated within the lifetime of this Parliament. We Mould have liked to be able to give effect to it forthwith—or, should I say, "at a stroke"—in this Bill. But the deferment, though not for long, of this part of the reform was the reluctant result of a careful and deliberate assessment of priorities. We thought it more important to get inflation-proofing thoroughly established for those who are already over 60 or are otherwise qualified, at a cost of something like £80 million to public funds, before bringing in this further criterion of eligibility at a further cost of another £11 million or so.
Finally, on a rather more technical level, the Bill repeals the eleven Pension (Increase) Acts at present on the Statute Book and provides for their consolidation in a way which retains the rights and expectations of the many thousands of people who still have existing and contingent entitlements under them. I am sure that we have been right to consolidate in this way. The new system will also simplify administration, both because it is simpler and more predictable and also because, in future, all this will be properly codified. On all counts, my Lords, I should like—I say this with a real degree of sincerity—to pay tribute to the Parliamentary draftsman for his ingenuity in producing the Bill and planning the main Order which is to follow
1290
and which is to be made under it as described in paragraphs 45 to 47 of the White Paper.
Those then, my Lords, are the main features of this Bill. I believe that the expert commentator who wrote recently in the Financial Times was fully justified in describing it as a tremendous leap forward for public service pensioners. If one could qualify words like "fair", I would say that this measure could, if anything, be described as on the generous side of fair. I have spoken for some time, but this is a Bill which I, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, before me, have been deeply concerned with, and perhaps therefore I may be excused for having taken up some of your Lordships' time.
May I, in conclusion, turn to one or two main lines of criticism about the Bill which I have heard voiced. First, I should like to express my sincere appreciation of the work of the Public Service Pensioners' Council and the help they have given us by the advice we received from them in our discussions with them during the preparation of the Bill. Equally, my Lords, in fairness I must add that my appreciation of a group of Amendments—which they appear to have canvassed in another place after the publication of the Bill—is less than total. Some noble Lords may have seen these Amendments. They would abandon inflation-proofing and substitute a hybrid of a cost of living and an average earnings index for assessing all the increases under the Bill. For good measure they throw in an annual rather than a two-yearly review, and they would substitute a 2 per cent. for the 4 per cent. minimum cost of living trigger.
At first hearing some of this may not sound wholly unreasonable, but I must make clear that I regard this package at this time as wholly unrealistic. We have costed the Council's proposals and they would raise the total cost of the Bill to public funds from something just under £80 million—£79 million—to £213 million per annum. They would cost about £100 million a year more than parity and would raise most, if not all, the individual pensioners far and away about the parity level. Frankly, my Lords, these proposals are just "not on". I have mentioned parity. I know that

1291
this principle of parity, the principle of updating old pensions by raising them to the level of new pensions currently being awarded for the same record of service, is still the long-term aim of some. In view of all that the Bill offers, I hope that it will not now be seriously proposed to us once more. Suffice it to say that the Government, together with I think the official Opposition, are opposed to parity mainly on grounds of cost, outside comparisons and intrinsic merit. I should be happy to expand on this later, if necessary.
Some more discerning critics have singled out and argued particular aspects of the Council's package on their merits, and particularly the proposed annual review. Conscious that both main political Parties had earlier come quite independently to the conclusions that two-yearly reviews are right, they have argued that the rate of inflation in recent months would be a justification for change now. I could not deny that there is some force in this suggestion, but the Government are (and I would be disingenuous if I did not make this clear) firmly against it on merit. In reaching this conclusion they have had regard principally to the quantity and quality of the whole package of the Bill, the practice of other good employers and our own firm view that those who ask for annual reviews are too much influenced by the experience of what I regard as an exceptional and rather untypical period, and are, in consequence, taking too pessimistic a view of the future course of inflation.
The last respect in which I would like briefly to anticipate the possible interests of some noble Lords concerns overseas pensioners. This Bill represents no change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The coverage is basically the same as under previous Acts. Clause 12 has been added in another place only to provide beyond doubt a contingent power, which we had earlier thought and said was already provided, but which further legal advice revealed to be in doubt. Under that clause it would be possible, if any Government were in future so to decide, to bring within the ambit of the Bill certain over-sea expatriate pensioners who were not Crown servants and who have sometimes
1292
been loosely described as "quasi-Government" pensioners. Again, I could say more about this at the end of the debate, if required.
I apologise for speaking at some little length, but the Bill we have before us is one which affects in an intimate and direct way the welfare, the prospects and, indeed, the happiness of many hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, who are now retired but who have deserved well of our society and our State. I hope that in view of what I have said about the value of this new deal as a whole—and I believe that it is a very fair deal—your Lordships will be able to give this Bill, with whatever qualifications your Lordships may wish to give it, in general a warm and unreserved welcome.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe).
3.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is my experience that when your Lordships' House meets on a Friday, we try if possible to finish by 4 o'clock. I think that this may be too optimistic, but I shall try to make my own contribution fit as near as possible to that target. My task is made all the easier because of the clarity of the noble Earl's exposition and because of my almost total agreement with what he had to say. He was good enough to pay some generous tributes, and at the risk of this appearing to be a mutual admiration society I would say that I am grateful for what he had to say. It is a surprising thing that in another place they appeared not to know the genesis of this Bill and to think that somehow it all came out of the Conservative Election Manifesto. As the noble Earl knows, the proposals in that manifesto were for establishing a sort of 1956 parity, which would have been nothing like as good as the proposals now put forward by the Government.
I am rather conscious of behaving like a retired headmaster who is continually giving advice to the present headmaster, but I am bound to say that it is a matter of great personal satisfaction to me—and it does no harm to say so in these contentious days—to recognise a community of view on certain things which the noble Earl singled out. He took the initiative on two matters which I feel are of primary

1293
importance. One is a realisation of the morass that existed in pension increases in the past—of which he gave examples—and the second is in establishing a better system of premature retirement. I know from my own experience that it is not always easy to persuade one's colleagues that what seems to one just and necessary should be done, and I congratulate the noble Earl on his success, and on the speed with which he acted. He might not have been so successful a little later and this, I think, shows good political judgment on his part.
I am sorry to go on with these bouquets, but he is right in paying tribute to his Department. It is not usual to refer to officials by name and I do not propose to do so, but the noble Earl will know that we hold in high regard a particular under-secretary and others who are associated with him. They have put us right. The inflation-proofing scheme which came out of the Civil Service Department is unquestionably the best and most practical scheme. The noble Earl was good enough to laugh at the point about doing something "at a stroke", as to which he will no doubt say that we have misinterpreted the Prime Minister. So, equally, in another matter, where the previous Prime Minister was misinterpreted, this Bill ensures that the pound in the pensioner's pocket is not devalued—though let me hasten to add that I have always thought that that particular phrase was grossly mishandled for political purposes.
This set of proposals will, I am sure, stand for a long time. We agreed that there should be these regular reviews; but I cannot help feeling that by establishing this system, in the present context, and in the new type level of pensions that exist outside, they are fair: but, I still say—I agree with the noble Earl—on the generous side. I am bound to say that I think the pursuit of parity would not really be practicable, nor would it be just to the rest of the community, for many of whom provision is still inadequate. This Bill, of course, covers vastly larger numbers than the Civil Service. It has surprised me how many people are still unaware of the benefits that it confers on them. The fact that doctors in the National Health Service, consultants (and perhaps the noble Earl will confirm this in his winding-up
1294
speech), teachers, firemen and others will benefit from these proposals is something which is of great value. This is particularly true of the Armed Forces (and we shall leave this to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who has been so active on their behalf to comment on) who will benefit by a different Instrument.
The noble Earl gave us a number of quite extraordinary anomalies that existed under the previous system. I am not quite sure that they are anomalies which should have been given as examples to me: they seem to be even worse than some of those that I have heard about. Not the least of the virtues of this Bill is that it produces a great measure of equity generally by removing so many anomalies. There is one point that we shall want to consider and may wish to discuss in Committee. I agree that some of the suggestions that have been made for Amendments to this Bill are suggestions which I should find it difficult to support, and which I do not believe are actively pursued by the principal trade union leaders concerned. One of the great advantages in dealing with the Civil Service is the sense of responsibility of the unions—in this context I could make a comment about the Industrial Relations Bill; but I will not do so.
I think we should consider further the question (the noble Earl may wish to comment on this) as to whether two years is now the right period. I agree that it was the view of both Parties on the passing of the last Bill that two years was the right period, and, if my memory is correct, if there was a 4 per cent. increase in the cost of living during that period then the Government were to announce what action they were going to take. This is now all regularised. But there is little doubt that a strong argument could be made that, if two years was the correct period in order to ensure reasonable justice then, under present conditions, the interval ought to be one year. There are arguments against this, and in fact a review is in progress into linking pensions with a proper national pensions system.
One of the tragedies (though I do not wish to pursue this point) in the situation is that Mr. Crossman's National Insurance proposals, which very much complemented this Bill, and indeed provided a greater justification for the dynamising in

1295
effect of public service pensions, are not to be applied. We therefore, for the moment, have to look at this Bill on its own. There may well be practical arguments against it, but in terms of justice, if the cost of living goes up by as much as 8 per cent. in one year, instead of 4 per cent. over two years, as it might have done, there would seem to be a strong case for a review. The difficulty is that one would never cease reviewing; and that I acknowledge. The noble Earl has managed to overcome other difficulties, and I should like to ask him to consider this matter further, because we may return to it at the Committee stage. In this connection, I must say that the change with regard to the effect of benefit from these schemes on those who have to retire earlier than 55 is an addition made by the Government: themselves, and they are entitled to the credit for it. But I think the noble Earl will still agree that it is less important than the broad sweep of this Bill which he has now introduced.
I mentioned just now its relationship to a proper national pensions system. The absence of this makes more difficult, I believe, a satisfactory system of pensions for ill-health retirement, which is one of the subjects we were discussing. The absence of it also makes more difficult projects and intentions regarding transferability, which I know the noble Earl himself favours both transferability and preservation. However the Government will go ahead on their own, because I know that talks will be taking place parallel to those we were having with the Joint Superannuation Committee a year ago.
I hope very much that two other aspects will be covered. One is better widows' pensions. There is no doubt that a one-third pension is not fair to a widow; and we all know of women connected with the Civil Service or with the Armed Forces whose husbands have died in some way not attributable to the Service, and who are living only with great difficulty. I hope that soon we shall move to a 50 per cent. widow's pension.
I should also like to mention pensions for temporary staff. I have always disliked the idea that in an occupational pension scheme some of the temporary staff—and obviously there must be
1296
sensible administrative limits—should not be able to benefit from an occupational pension scheme. One must bear in mind that there are many so called "temporaries" (they are "temporaries" because they are not established, even though they may have been for 20 years or so in the Service) who never become established; if they did, their service would count. I think it is important that provision should be made for them, again as an example to the rest of the country.
I should have liked to discuss some of the inadequacies of occupational schemes outside the Service, but it would not help to do so. However, I am grateful to see this Bill coming into law. It will certainly set an example which I hope will be followed more widely. There are still difficulties; and I note what the noble Earl had to say about overseas pensioners and the provision now being made in the Bill, because of the mistaken impression, as I understand it, of the Government that this provision could have been made under the Bill as originally drafted. There was an unfortunate slip here. However, when I was in this position I had to resist this particular claim. None the less, it may well be that something can one day be done. At present, there is a feeling of injustice. But it would certainly not be appropriate for me, in the position I have taken up, to seek to press the noble Earl further. So I end by congratulating the noble Earl, and by saying that I hope some of the points which I have made, and which other noble Lords will be making, will be considered, and that in due course we may wish to raise some points on Committee.
3.35 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who has had to leave to catch a train to Liverpool for a long standing engagement, after having taken part in the Civil Aviation Bill, has asked me to say one or two words about what he felt-upon this Bill. First of all, he wanted me to say how grateful we were for the provisions of the Bill and, in general, how pleased we are about it.
There were three points in which he was particularly interested, all of which the noble Earl has touched upon. The first of them concerned the machinery. I know that my noble friend will be disappointed with what the noble Earl

1297
had to say about a suggestion for the rectification of rates of pension by way of taking an average of the index of cost of living and the index of wages instead of in terms of cost of living index only. I know that there have been many suggestions, of which this is one, to try to devise some anti-inflationary device which could be built into pensions so that they rise automatically with the rise in the cost of living, without themselves being inflationary. This was one of those devices. I know how disappointed my noble friend will be to hear that such a scheme would cost in the order of something like another £100 million a year. This is very disappointing. I am sure that the noble Earl is right in his figures; nevertheless, I am sorry to hear that.
EARL JELLICOE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I have less confidence about being right in my own figures if they are really my own figures; I have complete confidence in those who have given me those figures.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, my noble friend was also interested in the question of the two years as opposed to one year. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also felt that there was something to be said for having a review annually instead of biennially.
The third point, upon which the noble Earl also touched, was the question of quasi-Government employees in former Colonial territories. I know that it has always been the Government's view that a line must he drawn somewhere, and they wish to draw the line between those who worked for the central Government and those who worked for, say, a local authority or university. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that the amount of money involved would not be very great, and that it would be of immense value to servants of those institutions if it were possible to protect their pensions as well. I should have thought, from the way the Bill is drafted, that there is no reason why the Government, without introducing new legislation, should not be able, under the powers that they already have, to make rules defining the eligibility of pensioners to receive the supplement. This means that under certain conditions the Minister can authorise supplements without further legislation. This seems to me to be something on which the
1298
Government could think again. I hope that I may have the support of noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who have great experience in this matter.
Those were the points on which we felt that there was room for improvement in the Bill. Apart from that, we welcome it very strongly. A lot more, I feel, could be said upon this Bill, but there are six more speakers and, if we are going to follow our tradition of trying to finish our proceedings before four o'clock, that means we can have four minutes each, and I think that I have had my four minutes.
3.39 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I will try, like my predecessors, to keep my remarks short. I should like to thank the noble Earl, the Leader of the House for his excessively kind remarks about the Officers' Pensions Society and my part in the negotiations. In return I would say that I very much enjoyed discussing with political leaders on both sides this very important subject and that F received really hearty co-operation. In particular, I remember Mr. Reynolds, who was the Under-Secretary of State for Administration and who died in a military hospital not far from here. He had this subject really at heart and helped us tremendously. My general feeling about the Bill is one of thanks on behalf of the Armed Forces, if I may for the moment speak for them. It is a tremendous advance and represents a new concept in the system of pensions which allows for inflation at whatever speed that may go. It is a great advance, to my mind, on the previous system, which was relief of hardship at three-year intervals and entailed much lobbying and a lot of hot debate, and was not always, in spite of the generosity, very satisfactory because of the mass of anomalies which the noble Earl the Leader of the House mentioned. The automatic nature of the biennial reviews is also a system of keeping up with the inflation and keeping pensions up to the purchasing power for which they were originally issued. It is something for which we have been pressing for a good many years.
There is only one criticism on this aspect of the Bill. Although it provides a measure of inflation-proofing, it does

1299
not provide for any increase in the sharing of the rising standard of living which the Leader of the Labour Party actually referred to as a "share in rising prosperity". He mentioned that six years ago, and I am sorry to say we are still waiting for it. When we join the Common Market we shall find, if we are not careful, that pensioners in the other countries are sharing in their rising national prosperities while we British, although this measure represents a very great advance in the public service pensions system, will not be sharing in that rising standard of living. It may be quite important as the years go by. I have a suspicion that there are two standards of living. One is for the workers. In the case of the Armed Forces, the generals, the private soldiers and the admirals who are actually defending us receive rates of pay, and consequent pensions, which are the rate for the job; and a very good thing too. But the retired officers and retired civil servants, ratings and other ranks, do not receive any share in the rising standard of living—at least not under this Bill. They have contributed to that share in the rising standard of living but they receive nothing in return.
My next comment is about the choice of the April, 1969, base line, which is fair and incidentally has entailed much work. We appreciate that and the very good reasons why the new pensions cannot be paid until September 1, 1971. But the moment one brings in a system which contains original gaps, those gaps will percentage-wise not change, but from the point of view of money they will change very much. May I give two examples. Majors retiring on the 1964 and 1966 codes have a gap at September 1, 1971, of £159. On a 5 per cent. annual rise in cost of living, that gap will rise, from the money point of view, to £254. If cost of living should rise by 10 per cent., it will rise to £394, which is a very big amount. The other example is that of brigadiers, who under the 1964 and 1966 codes would have a gap at September 1, 1971, of £390. On a 5 per cent. basis that would widen to £629 and on a 10 per cent. rise in cost of living basis the gap would widen to £971, very nearly £1,000. That is the difference for those two types of elderly retired officers.
1300
There is only one way out of this system by which anomalies increase. It is, of course, to increase parity. We know very well that the cost of parity has hitherto precluded both kinds of Government from accepting it, but this Bill will cost £79 million a year. I wonder how much extra it would cost to bring in parity. That would get rid of the gaps I have mentioned. In any other system without parity, inevitably these gaps will be involved and they will inevitably widen from the money point of view. It has always seemed very curious to me that we accept a system of parity under National Insurance and everyone gets the latest increase. The same applies, by the way, to disability pensioners who also receive the latest increase, whatever their age or disability. It has never been explained to me why one section of the community, the elderly and the disabled, should receive treatment by parity and yet the million or so public servants and Armed Forces pensioners should not receive parity and that in fact it should be refused. I am not pressing for it in this particular Bill, but I should be interested in the answer to that question.
My last point on the Bill itself concerns the business of reducing the age of eligibility for increases to 55. The sooner that is done the better. "During the life of this Parliament" is a fairly vague phrase. Two things must not be forgotten. One is that now changing one's career is much more difficult than it was immediately after the war. It is especially difficult for retired officers who are not qualified in many ways like other ranks and ratings. Sometimes they have to retire as early as the age 45, which means 15 years of erosion before they get the increase. For warrant officers and N.C.O.s retirement is even earlier, but they do not have so much difficulty in getting a second career. In other words, what I am pressing for is that as erosion starts hitting the retired officer or the retired public service pensioner straight away if he retires at 45 or 50, which is very early indeed by Civil Service standards, he ought to get the increases straight away. In other words, the age limit should be withdrawn altogether.

1301
My Lords, I have no Amendments to offer to this Bill, but there are two connected matters about widows which have already been mentioned by the Leader of the House and by the Leader of the Opposition and to which I wish to refer. One is widows' half-rate pensions. Big companies such as Shell and Unilever pay these already. Our friends in another place also get half pensions, although admittedly they contribute to them. An officer cannot return his contribution because of being in a jungle or a swamp, but the fact remains that he has earned his pension; therefore his widow should get it. Lastly, there are widows who married after retirement of the husband. This point has been pressed again and again. The husband earned the pension and, in my opinion, it is iniquitous that the widow should not get anything at all. It is high time that this small matter was put right. It will not cost very much; indeed, with proper safeguards it could be done quite cheaply. Therefore my general remarks about the Bill are to thank the Government very much on behalf of the Armed Forces and the public service pensioners for a Bill which ought to take the heat out of the annual debates in Parliament and at last give justice to the retired officers and public service pensioners.
3.50 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I will try to conform to the general desire to be as brief as possible and will talk in shorthand—if that is possible. I wish to speak about the Royal Warrants and war pensions, which are akin to this matter and allied to the matter about which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, has just spoken. He asked how it came about that a soldier, sailor or airman who comes out of the Services gets a very modest pension, be he officer or man, whereas the disabled and the elderly have very much better pensions.
The answer surely is age. The disabled man, generally speaking, cannot earn a living very easily, nor can the very old man; and that seems to me to be the simplest answer to this question. I am not unsympathetic to the soldier, sailor and airman. Indeed, it is well that they, among all our citizens, should be the best friends of the disabled ex-Servicemen
1302
—and they have been. I have cooperated with General Jeffreys and I would co-operate with the noble and gallant Lord, if I were asked, and would help him in his campaign in the way I was helped when I was campaigning for the disabled.
For over 50 years, all Parties in the State, all Parliaments and the people generally, have accepted the fact that an increasing burden or responsibility rests upon all the people to see that disabled ex-Servicemen are generously treated; and efforts have been made over these 50 years by all Parties, leading to a situation which is at any rate not ungenerous. This involves a certain priority, the kind of priority which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, was talking about. There is the priority given to the old, to the disabled and to the blind. I hope and feel that such priority must be continued. Whatever else is done, I hope the pattern that has been set these 50 years will continue; that the disabled ex-Servicemen—and particularly those disabled in the highest degree—will take a special place in the hearts of the people and that assistance to them out of the pockets of the people will be continued.
I am glad to think that the pattern set by the nation, the pattern evolved by St. Dunstan's and the pattern of other similar organisations, under which very special attention and a great deal of money has been spent upon disabled ex-Servicemen has found fruit in the civilian field. Those now disabled in industry, those going blind or disabled for other reasons outside a war—perhaps even outside industry—by natural causes, are very much better treated than they were. Civil Service pensioner nurses are treated very much better than they were, all because of the example that was first set for the ex-Servicemen and particularly the disabled ex-Servicemen.
It may well be said that disabled ex-Servicemen have done something for others in similar plight by blazing a trail. But I hope priority for them will go on, because it must be a long time before this nation can afford to upgrade all to the standard of the highest. Let us not then in any way depart from the feeling that has moved all Parliaments, been spoken of by all Leaders and by all Ministers for 50 years, under which these categories do receive a special favour

1303
from the nation—if you like, a special preference, a special priority: for example, in the matter of jobs, in the matter of housing, in the matter of allowances for rates in local authority housing. In all these fields there has been a special privilege given to the disabled man, and. I hope it will widely continue.
I do not speak for the Royal British Legion, though I did at one time; but I know, having talked to them, that they would wish me to associate them in thanking all Governments over these 50 years, but in thanking this Government now for the arrangements made for the war pensioner. They are in general not ungenerous; but I will deal in brief sentences with the field I know best, of the war blinded. These men, according to their various degrees of blindness and other disabilities, such as additional loss of limb and so on, and the allowances they get, have been granted in the award I am now talking about, which parallels with this Bill, a rise of from 19 to 28 per cent. That is related to a rise of 11 per cent. in the cost of living since the last award was made. So it will be seen as not ungenerous—I will go further, indeed generous. But of course—and here we come to the crux of the matter—the award was made and the rates were set six months ago, and they will not be the same in September. The gap, the advantage, will not be the same in September, and will certainly not be the same in two years. I associate myself with the view expressed by the Opposition and by others. The Government will, it seems to me, have to consider something a little more immediate than a two year review, if such inflation as we now have persists.
Here I want to mention one figure only, which may impress your Lordships or anyone who reads what we say. In the three months period from January 20 to April 20 this year the cost of living went up 5 points. Let us "put that in our pipes and smoke it," because it is a valid criticism of the two years period. The noble Earl told us about the gap—it made me think of a credibility gap, but that is something else, of course—the five months gap which he benevolently said he is going to fill in, if I understood him. Is he going to fill it in for the disabled
1304
war pensioners? I hope he will answer that question when he comes to reply. If I understood him aright about filling in this gap, what was said five months ago will be altered in September above what was set; at least I suppose that is what he meant.
May I conclude by giving a very few figures which I feel ought to go on the Record. The £1 of the year 1938 (the 100p as we now call it) was 10 years later worth 51p, practically half. It is now worth 22p—ponder this: under a quarter—in half of my lifetime. If this progression is taken on to the end of the century it will be worth an old shilling or what is now called 5p. As everybody knows, inflation is the greatest of the problems that faces us. Above all, it faces all the categories for whom we are talking and thinking to-day—the old and the disabled. I want to take the opportunity of saying "Thank you" to ail those who work, to all those who save and all those who make a living for Britain, because it is to them that the old and the disabled must look. Unless they work well and successfully and make money, and unless the economy thrives, there cannot be benefits for those who fire to some extent dependent. I feel we should say "Thank you".
One last word in support of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, in what he said about the standard of living. This is something quite different from the cost of living. All through my lifetime, and the lifetime of anyone in our vintage, there has been an increase in the standard of living; and what used to be taken as luxuries now become, if not necessities, at any rate enjoyments of life, and it is our hope that the old and the disabled, and especially those for whom I speak, may continue to enjoy, each time there is a review, a little of the increase in the standard of living which is the common lot of the British.
4.2 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I rise not because I have anything highly new and original to say nor because I am an expert on the subject like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne; I am merly the recipient of a small sum which seems to vary very mysteriously from month to month and I have the mixture of laziness and virtue which has dissuaded me from asking what this Bill

1305
is going to do to me. I am grateful for the noble Earl's suggestion that it may be beneficial. None the less, I felt that somebody who is a retired civil servant should say a word in this debate both of comment and, if I may anticipate later remarks, appreciation.
This is obviously a reform of the very greatest importance, since it removes one item in the whole matter of calculating pensions which I think, quite apart from its mathematical implications, has been a difficulty. I think it is always possible psychologically to demand more than you deserve for what you are actually doing; on the other hand, to ask for not quite enough for what you have stopped doing is, even for people of great articulateness, a little difficult. There has always been this emotional and psychological difficulty about pension increases and, quite apart from mathematical benefits and the money benefits which this Bill will confer, there is this psychological difficulty removed, I hope once and for all, from this arena.
Now as to whether there are criticisms. An ex-civil servant will always look first for weasel words in a Bill like this, and I am happy to say that one finds very few. I do not like the phrase, "as soon as may be" but perhaps it is a term of art. I also notice in Clause 2(5) the phrase:
" On any review…the cost of living shall be assessed by such means as the Minister thinks appropriate."
Any Minister within sight, past or present, does not worry me at all, but I would appreciate a comment by the noble Earl on whether he feels that that definition of how the cost of living should be assessed for the purposes of this Bill is fully safeguarded in the interests of future pensioners. I am sure that the answer is in the affirmative, but I should like to feel that there is some really thought-out justification for feeling that the position is truly safe under that definition.
I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others in the matter of widows. Somehow or other the pensions for widows tend to get left at the bottom of the argument. When I joined the Diplomatic Service no arrangements were made at all, and we have always taken a little time to catch
1306
up. I still wonder whether the present arrangements are in fact adequate, and perhaps the noble Earl would say a word on that side of the matter.
On the question of early retirement, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has said; with, however, the qualification that, certainly from the point of view of the Diplomatic Service, this all ties up with the reason for which retirement has taken place. It is conceivable that this will be dealt with more satisfactorily under the parallel argument on the terms of premature retirement, but it is a point which should not fall between the two separate pieces of legislation. A point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I apologise to him because I was not quick enough in following his argument. If there is anything which I can contribute to the point that he made, I shall be very happy to discuss it with him later.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I must apologise. I think I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, but it was perfectly clear to me that what I meant to say concerned the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and was not really in the field of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I am deeply relieved. On the matter of the annual review, I find myself very much, as a former civil servant, in sympathy with the noble Earl. I think an annual review would, if I may speak colloquially, mean administrative fidgets all the time, and I think in a matter of this kind it is a good thing to have the Administration doing its work for one year, and then perhaps sitting back and looking at its effects, repercussions and details for the next year. One must then wag a symbolic finger in the vaguely political direction, and say that if inflation goes on at the rate at which it has proceeded in recent years, the demand for an annual review will undoubtedly become irresistible.
Those are some of the points which have been made, and which seem to me to be the most important ones for further consideration. It only remains for me to express the appreciation, which I forecast, first to the Government and to the noble Earl, not only for having produced this legislation but for having found time to accelerate its consideration

1307
in another place and in your Lordships' House. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, need worry too much about lack of appreciation. I can assure him that, certainly in circles which knew more intimately what he was doing, we appreciated very much indeed the understanding and humane manner in which he took up this matter when it was brought to his attention, and we know about his great contribution to what has finally appeared.
If I may just add one thing, it is that the possibility of producing this very important legislation has come about, in a sense, because there is now a Ministry of the Civil Service. Previously the difficulty over matters like this has always been that there have been petitioners on one side, the civil servants or whoever it may have been, and there has been the rock of resistance (not an irresponsible one), the Treasury, on the other. It has been possible to sort this out only because the Department of the Civil Service has been the man in the middle with a financial conscience and yet, in a different way, also on the side of the Civil Service.
If I may add to those compliments, perhaps I may put in one little plug for my own Department. It has been something of a privilege to be on the edge of these matters in the sense that the Diplomatic Service, through being a smaller Service, has been hammering away at the frontiers of what happens to people when they retire. We achieved a certain amount in the Acts which now exist but perhaps not enough, and I think we have been able to make to the work of the Civil Service Department a certain contribution which has helped towards this felicitous result. With those comments, it only remains for me to join other noble Lords in thanking the Government for what they have done in this matter and to wish this Bill a rapid and harmonious progress into legislation.
4.11 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long. I realise that this is a Friday evening and that most of us want to get away at the end of what has been a rather strenuous week. But it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this
1308
Second Reading, because in our discussions on previous Pensions (Increase) Acts we have cut right across Party lines. We have been constructive, and there has been a general desire in all parts of the House to make a constructive contribution. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, because he and I discussed a subject, which we dealt with in Committee on the previous Pensions (Increase) Act, which has to do with certain categories of officers who at that stage were omitted. I shall deal with that briefly at the concluding stage of my speech.
I give a general welcome to this Bill, for three reasons. First—and one must declare one's interest in this matter—I am a retired Colonial civil servant and this Bill benefits me. But, in addition to that, I feel that to some extent it rectifies the difficulties which Colonial overseas pensioners have faced in recent years since they retired to this country. Secondly, and perhaps more important, at long last this Bill goes a long way to mete out justice to pensioners of the Overseas Civil Service. I say that with some diffidence, because I have had the honour to be a member of that Service. This Bill recognises that there were inequalities under previous Pensions (Increase) Acts, and that pensions would need a once and for all increase to bring them up to an equitable base line from which it would be possible to make biennial reviews. Previous noble Lords have commented on the biennial reviews, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, thought, with some justice, that with the increase in the cost of living it might have been more equitable instead to have annual reviews. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a similar point. I should like to give this matter some consideration before the Committee stage but, in view of the rapid increase in the cost of living, there is some substance in what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said.
The noble Lord. Lord Gore-Booth, raised the question of administrative difficulties. I am not in a position to make any comment on that, but I am here to represent the interests of overseas Service pensioners. But in paying a tribute to what lies behind this Bill, I think I should say to your Lordships that I am aware of the many considerations that

1309
have gone into its framing. Nobody has been more aware than I, in my capacity as a member of the Council of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association, of the courtesy extended to our Association by Governments when our delegations had points to make when we thought this Bill and previous Bills could be improved upon, or when we thought there was the possibility of removing some particular case of injustice. It is particularly moving to me personally to record this, because when you come home after years of service overseas you find that which, during that time, you had always believed in; that is, that you always get justice from some British Government, no matter what the political colour of that Government might be. I think it is only fitting, in connection with this Bill, that I should say that this evening.
My Lords, it has of course always been utterly impossible to strike, and nobody would ever think of it. If ever we wanted to improve our conditions of service, there was never any thought of a strike. We never could strike and we never would strike. No civil servant would ever contemplate such an action. Therefore, the only way we could get injustices remedied or improvements made to the conditions of service in which we were employed was to make constructive suggestions, to get one's point of view considered dispassionately and a reasonable compromise or agreement reached. I should like to express my appreciation, in all of this, to the present Minister of Overseas Development and Administration, and to his Ministers and officers. But as I said when I started my speech, it would be quite invidious of me to mention only members of the Government in this connection, and I should like to pay my tribute, as I did at the outset, to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as Minister for the Civil Service in the previous Government. I think that probably this Bill, as it sees the light of day to-day, is the result of the devoted labours given by two Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, and therefore I should like to record my great appreciation for the Bill.
My Lords, having said all that, there are still certain anomalies in the Bill and certain injustices which I think I must mention now, although I do not want to stress them on Second Reading. I think that perhaps it would be more appropriate
1310
if I dealt with the subjects when we get to the Committee stage. But there are still certain categories of officers—namely, those overseas officers of the former Achimota College in Ghana, and members of the Nigerian Coal Corporation and of the Lagos Town Council—who for years have not been able to get any supplement to their pensions. I will not go into any specific detail to-day beyond stating that it is my belief that there is an injustice here. These men were in all circumstances overseas officers, recruited as such by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, subject to all the Colonial regulations and so on which apply to all officers similarly recruited; but they have so far been unable to qualify under the various Acts as certifiable overseas officers.
I do not want my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to feel that he must give me a categorical answer this evening as to what may happen to these officers. I have a feeling that possibly they will be covered under Clause 11 or 12 which give power to the Government to include them and to see that they qualify for pension. Apart from that, I know that at the present time meetings are taking place between the Ministry of Overseas Development and our association to try to iron out some of these difficulties. It may be that the Government will be able to give us some answer at the present time. I do not believe that the cost of meeting the just claims of those officers who still survive can be very high. I would ask the Government to consider the suffering of the widows and to give sympathetic consideration to the very serious plight of these people. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and also Lord Shackleton who, although he did not touch on this subject, stressed the difficulties which I mentioned in a previous debate. I give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.22 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I had not intended to make a speech of any length in this debate, but in view of the appeal from the Front Bench to limit what one says I do not propose to make a speech in the ordinary sense at all. I should like merely to say that I, among many others, deeply appreciate the skill and the work which has gone into this Bill, which all of those of us who come

1311
from overseas—and many others too—welcome heartily. I had intended to deal with one or two points but I will yield to the request from the Front Benches not to take any part in this debate. The only thing I should like to add to the remarks of the last speaker is this. If it is true that Clause 12 gives the Government power to translate sympathy into action, then I would point out that the need for action in these cases of what are called quasi-Government officers is very urgent indeed. There are also widows suffering very considerably. These officers went out under the auspices of the Crown Agents or such organisations, and when Independence came to those territories these men were given the assurance of the British Government, through their new masters, that they would in no wise lose, either in pension or other respects, from the transfer if they wished to serve under the new authority. That assurance had the moral support and the promise of material support in the event of those authorities failing to honour this obligation.
I had intended to go into greater detail. I could have given some details which are vital to a proper consideration of this question. I know that the Government have had appeals over the last three years from the Overseas Association. I know they are in possession of the necessary facts which I could have put succinctly to your Lordships; but I will spare you that. I implore the Government to take immediate action under Clause 12, as I gather from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that that clause empowers them to take the necessary action without any legislation being necessary.
4.25 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say how much I apreciate the general welcome which this Bill has received. Quite a number of questions have been put to me but, because of the plea regarding time and that we should "draw stumps" reasonably soon, I will be as brief as possible in my reply. If, peradventure, I fail to answer a question, I will try to ensure that I communicate with the noble Lord concerned. Because of the general welcome received by the Bill I think I should concentrate on the points of moderate criticism or advice which have been made or proffered.
1312
I turn to the possibility, mooted by a number of noble Lords, that perhaps we have been wrong in holding to the two-year review cycle. I listened carefully and was not surprised to hear suggestions made for an annual review period. The Government understand the anxiety of pensioners living in a period of far too rapid inflation. We are not without sympathy for the suggestion that reviews should be made at shorter intervals. Once again. I would stress the importance of looking at this Bill as a package and at the very great benefits that it will bring. I think that these have been fully recognised by noble Lords. Under the Bill, the situation for pensioners will be transformed almost beyond recognition. As an example, I would refer to a letter received from Mr. Feather, General Secretary of the T.U.C. (this was as a result of a deputation which came to see me), in which he described the Bill as containing
" virtually all the features for which the unions in local government have been pressing for a number of years."
My Lords, the Government cannot prove objectively, and I would not seek to do so, that two years must be right and a yearly review would be wrong. But we have considered this point with very great care because it was obvious that we should be pressed on it. If we were to add annual reviews to this already attractive and not ungenerous package, we should certainly involve ourselves in further expenditure, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. We should also involve ourselves in a considerable and added administrative burden. More generally, we should be doing more than we could easily justify to the taxpayer who foots the Bill, and who, incidentally, in most cases cannot expect anything like comparable treatment. By doing what we are now proposing to do in this Bill we are, I think, placing ourselves near the top of the list of what good employers give to former employees. I think it is right that we should so place ourselves. I should have some doubts about the desirability of our placing ourselves too far ahead of the best of the field. But if need be, we can come back to this matter at a later stage. I feel that there is a great deal to be said for the two-year review provision.

1313
While I am on this point, I think I can give the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, the assurance for which he asked, about how the assessment of the rise in the cost of living between reviews will be made. I am happy to repeat what my honourable friend said in another place and assure the noble Lord that for the foreseeable future our intention is to use the normal Department of Employment index of retail prices. It may be that at some future date an index will become available that reflects more nearly the circumstances of public service pensioners. That is the only reason why the matter is left open. I think it would be a mistake to tie ourselves too rigidly to any tine index for all time, because we know that indexes are not always perfect. But there was no insidious, Machiavellian motive behind the words which the noble Lord quoted.
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, for his generous welcome to the main provisions of the Bill and for what he said about reducing the qualifying age now or in the very near future. I think, at root, there is little between us. We fully accept in principle that the qualifying age should be reduced to 55. We are clearly committed to this and recognise this commitment. We also fully accept that it is less easy to obtain employment in one's later 'fifties than it is at an earlier age. I myself found that problem before I was in my later 'fifties, may I say. All I would add is that the timing we propose simply reflects our best estimate of the interests of public service pensioners as a whole and of priorities and costs. I need not repeat what I said in introducing the Bill, when I think I anticipated some of the suggestions which the noble and gallant Lord made. When one is making a very considerable advance, as we are in this Bill, it is not always possible, much as we should like it, to advance across the whole front at the same time. But it is certainly our firm intention to push this particular sector forward, certainly within the lifetime of this Parliament.
The other point the noble and gallant Lord made was in pressing, as I have known him to press before, that we should go beyond inflation-proofing and move towards parity. I think that we could spend more than a minute or two in
1314
philosophical discussion of this point, but I am not certain that it would be particularly appropriate at this moment. I suspect that for the time being, at least, this is an area in which the noble and gallant Lord and I will have to agree to differ. But there is a point within the point here. The noble Lord referred to the need (I hope that I am not travestying his words) to give public service pensioners some share in the nation's growing prosperity, and my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale had the same point in mind in some of his remarks. We recognise this and, indeed, already do this, in two ways. In the first place, as my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale said, it is our degree of prosperity that enables the Government to afford to be a good employer and produce this Bill. If only, God willing, we continue in the right direction and become more prosperous, we shall be able to move further in these directions.
Secondly, the Government believe, like their predecessors, that what we can afford over and above inflation-proofing should be distributed to all older people through the medium of social security benefits, and that is why, consistently with this, the value of National Insurance retirement pensions has increased, not merely in step with inflation but, in real terms, by something like 70 per cent. in the last 20 years; that is, between 1950 and 1970. The great majority of public service pensioners benefit from National Insurance retirement pensions. I make these points not by way of an argumentative reply, because I have little doubt that, whatever I say at this early hour—the noble Lord is thinking about his train to the West—we shall remain divided in theory on this particular point, and I expect that he and his colleagues will return to this charge.
Let me deal, before I sit down, with some more specifics. A number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Bourne, Lord Shackleton, Lord Henley, on behalf of his noble friend Lord Beaumont, and Lord Gore-Booth—raised the question of the inadequacy of the present widow's pension. I can say that I have taken due note of what was said. This is, as I mentioned in my remarks at the outset, a matter that is under review. I do not think I would dissent from the view

1315
that to pitch it at one-third is at the present time pitching things too low. I am aware that in some sectors of private industry it is pitched higher. But it would be fooolish of me to predict the outcome of the review which is at present in train, and improper for me to try to do so. All I would say is that I should have thought it inconceivable that the level at which a widow's pension is fixed should not be one of the matters that will come up for critical scrutiny in that review. I suspect that noble Lords, reading between the lines, can understand the meaning of my words here. The pensions of widows of marriages entered into after retirement, another point to which the noble and gallant Lord referred, are a somewhat different matter. He is aware that Ministers have recently received a deputation on the matter, and it is under study. All I think I can properly say here is that our answer will be given and made known as soon as possible.
On the question of pensions for temporary staff, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I think I can give him—perhaps the noble Baroness will pass on these words—the sort of assurance that he would like to have. This is another matter that is at present being considered in the context of the more general review of Civil Service pensions which is in train at the present time. Due to that, I think it would be wrong of me to make any firm commitment at this stage, but I is certainly one of the areas in which I hope it will be possible for us to make some progress in the course of that review. I can also confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, what I think he already knows; namely, that there are few doctors and dentists who will not benefit from the provisions of this Bill.
Finally, on the other specific point (and I hope I have not missed too many of the specifics), there is the position of the quasi-Government pensioners. As I made clear when I introduced this Bill, the Government had no change of policy in mind when they introduced in another place the new clause, which is now Clause 12. I think there are few noble Lords interested in this not unimportant
1316
matter who do not know that since 1962 successive Governments have taken the view that only those who have worked for the Crown in the service of the central Government of the country concerned, and for whom the Secretary of State for the Colonies is strictly responsible, should be entitled to protection. That is the line which I think successive Governments have consistently maintained.
Nevertheless, I think we have all felt anxiety about this—an anxiety that was clearly expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon. That was why, when the present Government came to power, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development set in train a review, as a result of which we came reluctantly to the conclusion reached by previous Governments, that the only defensible line we could draw was the line of Crown service. However, there are two matters in train at the present time. First, when my right honourable friend Mr. Richard Wood explained this to the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association he agreed to arrange meetings between officials of his Department and the Association within a Working Party to examine whether each category of quasi-Government pensioner was correctly being so regarded and whether the dividing line was drawn at the right place. Those discussions in the Working Party are now in train. Secondly, I should like to go back to the earlier point: that the Bill provides, without any shadow of doubt, the power to bring these people within its scope should there be a decision at any time in the future to treat them, or some of them, in this way. That is all I can say at this stage on that particular point.
My Lords, I am afraid we have overrun now by the large amount of forty minutes our normal 4 p.m. deadline on a Friday, but may I just say, in conclusion, that something that the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said affected my own Department, and although it particularly pleased me I hope I can be sufficiently objective to stand back a little from the argument which he advanced. I believe that this type of legislation springs easily from a Government structure which includes a Civil Service Department with its own specific and defined areas of responsibility. I think, without being

1317
unduly immodest so far as my own Department is concerned, that this is probably objectively the effect. Having said that, I would again thank noble Lords for the general welcome which they have given to the Bill, and wish to say in conclusion that I think they feel, with me, that it represents a not inconsiderable advance. Perhaps we may push the frontiers a little further back over the next decade or so, but I think this represents a very big push indeed. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on June 30 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  RHODESIA DIVORCES
  RHODESIA DIVORCES