Sitting of 6 May 1971

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

    Schools (Floorspace)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied that the minimum areas of floorspace specified in the School Building Regulations are based on an adequate investigation of educational needs; and if she will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Spearing: In that case, will the right hon. Lady undertake to tell me in due course what were the terms of reference of that investigation, who undertook it, when it was undertaken and what criteria they used?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It was undertaken progressively, over the years, during which the Architects and Buildings Branch of the Department has acquired a reputation second to none.

    Primary and Secondary Reorganisation Schemes
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will list, at the latest available date, those local education authorities which have not submitted to her any scheme for reorganisation of their secondary education on comprehensive lines.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The majority of authorities had submitted plans before June, 1970. Plans have no statutory significance, and there is now no obligation to submit them. With permission, I will circulate more detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it not time that local education authorities were asked to end the selection and segregation of children at 11-plus, since it is a policy which is generally agreed now to be both socially divisive and educationally unsound?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I think it important that local authorities should carry out the duty laid upon them to provide schools for the varying aptitudes and abilities of the children—but so far no Government have told them precisely how they should discharge those duties.
    Following is the information:
    Authorities which have never submitted plans:

    Bournemouth.

    Bucks.

    Bury.

    Norfolk.

    Salford.

    Torbay.

    Warley.

    Westmorland.

    Worcester.

    Authorities whose plans were rejected before June, 1970, and which have not submitted revised plans:

    Bolton.

    Birmingham.

    Gloucester.

    Hillingdon.

    Harrow.

    Nottingham.

    Plymouth.

    Reading.

    Sutton.

    Mr. Woodhouseasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to ensure that the schemes of reorganisation of primary and secondary schools in county boroughs once approved by her Department are not withdrawn as a consequence of local government reform.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Reorganisation plans have no statutory significance, and they can be altered at any time. Changes in character of a school can only be effected under the procedure laid down under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some county councils are already beginning to assume that they will take control of the county boroughs which are to be amalgamated with them and are threatening to upset schemes of educational reorganisation which have already been passed by the local authority concerned and approved by her predecessor in office? Is it not desirable that there should be safeguards to prevent this from happening, and are there sufficient safeguards in the terms of her answer?
    Mrs. Thatcher: These are administrative procedures in regard to reorganisation plans. The actual changes are safeguarded by the statutory procedure.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend take particular note of the creation of Area 26 comprising parts of Gloucestershire and Somerset, where there is a fear, at both ends of the new authority, that the situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) may happen? Will she do everything in her power further to allay the fears that have been expressed by parents of children attending the Downend Church of England School, to which I have drawn her attention previously?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The procedure does not vary with the area, but I hope that parents and electors who feel strongly about any proposed change will write to the Department after a Section 13 notice has been issued. That is the only way by which we can at the moment effectively consider their views.

    School Meals
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what figures are available showing the change in the number of school dinners taken in the last month consequent on the increased prices.
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of the percentage of all school children who eat school meals.
    Mrs. Doris Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science
    1616
    what statistics she has received from local education authorities as to the reduction in the number of children taking school meals since increased charges have been levied.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have asked local education authorities to make a special return of meals on a day during the week beginning 17th May. This will provide reliable information about changes in demand for school meals following the introduction of the new charges and remission arrangements last month.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that estimates have been made that half a million school children will be, or rather are now being, denied these school meals? Does the right hon. Lady not regard this as a disgraceful state of affairs? Does she not recognise that if this policy is not changed she will go down in educational history as the Mrs. Scrooge with the painted face?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The take-up of meals always falls off after increased charges. It did so after the last Government increased charges as well.
    Mr. Carter: Is the Secretary of State aware that her rather insensitive and somewhat banal remarks on television about how children can appear to pay for free school meals has caused a great deal of distress and dismay in education circles? Second, is she aware that, in spite of her Circular 3/71, many local authorities, of which Birmingham is one, have many schools which are not allowing children to eat sandwiches instead of a school meal and that in some cases this means that children will go all day with no food at all?
    Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case which he wishes to put to us, we will, of course, take it up. On my previous remarks, my anxiety—I believe it is shared by every hon. Member—is that children who take free school meals should not be identifiable by their fellows.
    Mr. Marks: Will the right hon. Lady spare a thought for the dinner ladies, who cook and serve the meals? Their hours of work and pay are based on the number of dinners taken. Since many put in additional work on the crockery and whatever is needed for sandwich meals, they

    1617
    find that their work is just as hard but is paid less well.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, of course I will spare a thought for them, but I am not sure of the precise import of the hon. Member's question, apart from that.
    Mr. Lane: But is it not a fact, as my right hon. Friend has said, that, although the number of children taking meals fell after the Labour Government introduced the charge, they rose again, so that last year the percentage of children taking meals at school was considerably higher than five years before, in spite of two increases by the Labour Party in the meantime?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is correct. In spite of increases in school meal charges over the years, both the numbers and the proportion of children taking school meals have risen.
    Miss Lestor: When the right hon. Lady has collected the statistics, which, as she has said, will show a drop in the number of children taking school meals who have to pay for them, what does she intend to do if there is general concern, as we feel there will be, over that state of affairs? On her comments about trying to avoid embarrassing children who take free school meals, what further consideration is she giving to schemes and suggestions which have been put forward for alternative methods of collecting dinner money?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. Lady knows, the precise schemes are for local education authorities within the terms of the circulars which we and previous Governments have sent out. I do not think we can go further by laying down specific schemes. When the census results come in on 17th May I shall have reliable information. The hon. Lady will know that the remission scales are now higher than they have ever been before, and that in August there will be a family income supplement which will entitle many children to free meals automatically, without special application.

    Dyslexia
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she
    1618
    will now make a further statement about her policy on dyslexia.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am referring to the Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children the question of the need for guidance to local education authorities on dyslexia.
    Mr. Ashley: I warmly welcome that announcement as a significant step forward in the neglected question of dyslexic children. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Committee to take account of the views of both the experts on and the parents of dyslexic children and make its recommendations as quickly as possible?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. I shall be happy to do that. I am anxious to get authoritative advice on this very difficult problem.

    Primary Education (Expenditure)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of total public expenditure on primary education in 1969–70 and 1972–73, respectively, at constant prices.
    Mrs. Thatcher: For Great Britain, at constant 1970 prices, £537·5 million and £596·5 million respectively.
    Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's emphasis on primary education which these figures illustrate has been almost universally welcomed, and is not Labour criticism of the Government's education and social policies sour grapes and humbug?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It will continue to be my first priority because a great deal still remains to be done on a lot of primary school buildings.
    Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Lady now tell us the cost per pupil in secondary schools in 1969 and 1972 respectively at constant prices?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot give the precise figure, but, having looked at the increased number of pupils and expenditure, I am sure that expenditure will rise a good deal more than the increase in the number of pupils. So the right hon. Gentleman can take no comfort from my answer to his supplementary question.

    U.G.C. Hostel-Building Programme
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total cost of the University Grants Committee's hostel-building programme for each of the next five years; how many additional student places will be provided; what is the future building programme for the following 10 years; and if she will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): University building programmes from 1973–74 onwards have not yet been settled. Projects starting in the five years from 1968–69 to 1972–73 will provide over 23,000 residential places at a cost to public funds of about million.
    Mrs. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable concern in many university cities about the shortage of suitable hostel accommodation for students? Will he look at the whole question of the provision of hostel accommodation, at the ways in which it can be used more than it is at present, particularly during the long summer vacation, and at those areas where hostel accommodation has been provided but is not fully used because the students prefer to live in town?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I will certainly do that. Indeed, we are already looking closely at the matters which the hon. Lady mentioned. I only ask that we look at the provision for higher education as a whole and not by sectors. As the hon. Lady knows, the requirements in the non-university sector are even greater.

    Scientific Matters
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what approximate percentage of time has been taken up by Ministers in her Department on scientific matters in the last six months.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Quite a lot, but it is not possible to give a figure. I deal with scientific matters myself.
    Mr. Marten: I am sure that my right hon. Friend deals with it extremely well. Is she satisfied that it is still sensible for
    1620
    her Ministry to deal with so many scientific matters, including E.S.R.O., which might be transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry, which is now dealing with space?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am certain that it is right that basic research under the research councils should be kept with the Department responsible for the universities because the two are so closely intertwined. The answer to my hon. Friend's question about space is that I feel that at the moment it should be kept with basic research.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I am not clear about the point the right hon. Lady was making at the end of her last answer. Is she aware of the continuing concern among academics and scientists that she is considering hiving off parts of the Science Research Council to individual Departments? Will she take this opportunity to give a categoric assurance that she has no intention of doing that?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Sir Frederick Dainton, Chairman of the Council on Scientific Policy, is looking into the best structure for the future of pure and applied research in this country, and I do not expect his report before June.

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what instructions she has given her representative on the Burnham Committee with regard to making an additional offer in the teachers' salary negotiations.
    Mrs. Thatcher: None, Sir.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that virtually the whole of the teaching profession is fed up to the teeth with the Government and the Department of Education and Science because of their attitude to the justifiable pay claim which has been submitted and their fear that the Department is trying to do another Post Office job?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The negotiations in Burnham reached deadlock, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the independent chairman advised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to set up an arbitral body. Later Questions appear on the subject, and they will be reached shortly.
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a further statement on the teachers' pay negotiations.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a further statement on the progress of the teachers' pay negotiations.
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the latest position with regard to teachers' salaries.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The management panel of the Burnham Committee has complied with the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to nominate a member of the arbitral body. The teachers' panel has not so far done so. My right hon. Friend has now invited all the associations represented on the teachers' panel jointly to meet him.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the right hon. Lady now prepared to think along the same lines as her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), and do away with compulsory arbitration as laid down in the Remuneration of Teachers Act and get rid of direct Government representation on the Burnham Panel? If not, why not?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Because I am not prepared to consider changes while the system is in operation and the negotiations continue.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the verdict of the Committee of Inquiry into Post Office workers' pay can only confirm the teachers' worst fears about the extent to which the Government are influencing so-called arbitration at the present time? Does she appreciate that many teachers are not against arbitration as such but feel that arbitration must be on a fair basis and should consider the amount of the award rather than the question of structure?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not reflecting on the arbitration in the case of Post Office workers, because if he is, it is not a matter for me. Representatives of the teachers' associations will be seeing my right hon.
    1622
    Friend shortly. I have no doubt that they are very well able to put their own views to him.
    Mr. Armstrong: Is the Secretary of State aware that her declared support for the management proposals—that is, for a completely new structure for teachers' pay, a structure which will divide the profession, widen the primary/secondary differential and abolish the basic scale—is resented bitterly by the majority of teachers, and as—contrary to what she has said this afternoon—the Government have more direct control over the amount of and the negotiations for teachers' salaries, does she agree that such a fundamental change in payments to teachers ought to be the result of negotiations and ought not to be imposed by any arbitral settlement?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Many teachers are as anxious to have a structural settlement as I am. The terms of reference and scope of the arbitration body, as referred to my right hon. Friend by the independent chairman, included structure and level.
    Mr. Maude: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that in the situation which she inherited from the previous Government, once it reaches the stage when the matter is referred to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment she has no authority to interfere in the teachers' pay dispute?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is correct.
    Mr. Short: Did the right hon. Lady mean, when she replied to an earlier supplementary question, that once the present negotiations are concluded and out of the way, she will be prepared to consider abolishing compulsory arbitration and will be prepared to look at the machinery generally?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have told the teachers' representatives that I will not consider any of these things until after the present negotiations are out of the way. After that, if they wish to make representations to me, I shall hear and consider them.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Secretary of State aware that the fears of the teaching profession regarding arbitration are real, sincere and based upon experience? Would she not agree, in the circumstances,

    1623
    that teachers are being deprived of what might be called collective bargaining, and that this is a projection of Government policy to provide an incomes policy on a basis of keeping the public sector down while they can do nothing about the situation elsewhere? In those circumstances, while she may be unable to interfere with the arbitral processes, will she agree that it is imperative to bring confidence back to the profession, and give an undertaking that there will be a full review of teachers' pay in future?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We should all prefer a settlement as a result of negotiation. When negotiations break down, the arrangements for arbitration inherited from the previous Government are automatically put in train. They are still in train, and my right hon. Friend will be seeing the teachers' associations shortly. Art the moment I have no authority or standing, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out.
    Sir G. Nabarro: However a settlement is reached, would not my right hon. Friend agree that 9 per cent. is both salutary and agreeable?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think I should make any comment upon that particular sum, nor would it be advisable for me to do so at present.
    Mr. Spearing: Whatever the right hon. Lady has said about structure, would she not agree that there is genuine mystification among many teachers about the five proposed new scales? Would she not agree that to attain her objectives it would be possible to modify the present compound basic scale?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I wish that many more teachers had more information about the proposed scales. From my knowledge, I think that some of them would be quite pleasantly surprised.

    Boys' School, Portsmouth
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what communications she has received from Portsmouth City Council on the need to rebuild Kingston Modern School for Boys, in particular on the need to improve the dining facilities which serve the two parts of the schools; and what reply she has sent.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The authority has decided to improve the dining facilities under this year's minor works programme. It has no plans to rebuild this school.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the physical inadequacies of the school make proper school life almost impossible for staff and students, that one building is amongst the oldest educational buildings in the country—which is saying something—and that the other one was built as a temporary building with a 10-year life span immediately after the war, that it is a quarter of an hour's walk between the two buildings and that the only way that a proper school can be made out of the situation is to knock down the existing building and have a purpose-built school?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: This is one of the reasons why at least some additions to the school will be made, this forming part of the plans for the reorganisation of secondary education in Portsmouth. Meanwhile, I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is a useful step forward, especially in terms of the feeding arrangements, to use the minor works programme this year.

    Primary School Building Programme (Dorset)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional increases in allocations for primary school buildings are to be made to Dorset; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In March my right hon. Friend increased the Dorset local education authority's minor works allocation by £75,000 for each of the years 1971–72 and 1972–73 because of the authority's need for further primary school provision.
    Mr. King: Does not that figure represent an increase of about 34 per cent. over what the previous Government were able to manage? Is my hon. Friend aware how grateful Dorset is, not only for this additional money, but for the fact that the money has gone to the primary sector, where the need is greatest?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: This is an excellent demonstration of my right hon. Friend's policy working in practice.

    Student Unions (Funds)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what inquiries have been made into the misuse of public funds by student unions; and with what result.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: An inquiry has been carried out into the financing of student unions, and the results are now being studied.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Association and the Monday Club in Southampton University are still being prevented from having their just share of student union funds, are still being denied the use of union premises for their meetings, that the Left-wing president of the Students' Union, to his great credit, has resigned because of this injustice—[Interruption.]—which hon. Members opposite do not recognise to be—
    Hon. Members: Question.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: How long will ratepayers, how long will universities and how long will the Government tolerate—
    Mr. Speaker: Not much longer.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: —the misuse of ratepayers' money in a cheating conspiracy?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: It is fair to say that the particular action at Southampton, which along with my hon. Friend, I totally deplore, has equally been condemned by the leaders of the political associations of all the political parties at the university at any rate, even if not in the House. I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that it has also been condemned by resolution by the National Union of Students, whose incoming President has done everything that he can to have it reversed. The really regrettable feature is that out of a university of about 3,500 students, under 300 remained to the end of the meeting at which the decision was taken not to change their present position.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would not the Minister agree that if words such as "misuse" are being used, this is a matter for the police, but that if it is a question
    1626
    of students disagreeing with the policy of the council of the Students' Union, the remedy is in their own hands?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not prepared to go that far. The word "misuse" does not necessarily imply criminal misuse and, therefore, a matter for the police. It must very clearly be said that I should have thought that opinion on both sides of the House would not tolerate what I think is widely regarded as a misuse of funds if it results in discrimination against points of view which ought fairly to be expressed in a university.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when many students in universities are pressing for a greater participation in the administration of universities it is not much encouragement to that idea for this sort of behaviour to happen?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Indeed, it is not. On the other hand, I feel sure that the whole House would want to keep this matter in perspective and remember that it is the student body itself that has condemned it and is trying to put the matter right.
    Mr. Edward Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for the first time in 20 years I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)? I deeply regret what has happened at this university, because, clearly, the existence of a strong Monday Club or a Conservative Club is an assurance that there will be a very strong Labour Club? I hope the union officials and the union at Southampton University will reconsider their decision, which we would all regret.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope that the corporate view of the House will be listened to. Meanwhile, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to recall, in the interests of accuracy, that the Federation of Conservative Students is larger than all its opponents put together.
    Sir R. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek powers to make it a condition that when students' grants include a compulsory deduction to cover the amount payable to the appropriate

    1627
    Students' Union of the college or university, proper accounts showing how this money has been spent shall be made available annually to members of the Students' Union concerned.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I consider it essential that full and proper accounts should be kept of student union funds and that such accounts should be available to members. Both these matters are primarily the responsibility of the university and college authorities.
    Sir R. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend bring some pressure to bear on them to ensure that they carry it out? Is he aware that in a case of which I have sent him particulars the ratepayers of Croydon, although very anxious to promote higher education, strongly resent a process whereby the money they have provided is often spent on squalid and disreputable causes unconnected with education and with no accounts being provided?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: We have already had exchanges on the first part. If there are examples where money is not being properly accounted for, within the limits of my previous statement that this is primarily a matter for the university or college authority I will always be happy to look at them.
    Mr. Molloy: Many of us on this side of the House are grateful that the hon. Gentleman has not joined in the campaign to knock British students. Is he aware that only a few weeks ago the Secretary of State made a correct and proper remark in the House to the effect that students co-operate in many issues involving her Department? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to advise his hon. Friends that if they are concerned about funds—anybody's funds, public or otherwise—they should start examining issues like V. and G. and that mentioned in the Press this morning?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am here concerned with the funds which are provided for student unions. Anxiety about some of the financial transactions of some unions is spread right across the board among those who support and those who oppose student matters, and, therefore, it is not surprising that it has been the subject of close public inquiry.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whilst I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the over-
    1628
    whelming majority of student unions are fairly and responsibly run, are there not cases of abuse in individual unions, such as the case of Southampton, about which we have heard, and is there not a case for following the recommendations of the Select Committee and appointing a registrar of student unions?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That is one of the possibilities. I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend, in concert with the local authorities, has initiated inquiries, as have the Vice-Chancellors, and the results are now being studied.

    B.Ed. Degree Candidates
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many candidates for the degree of bachelor of education there were in 1970; and how many were successful.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: There were 2,417 candidates in 1970, of whom 2,268 were successful.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister satisfied with the present academic orientation of some of the courses and with the wide variation that appears to take place in the success rate among the different colleges? Is he taking any step to effect an improvement in the situation so that there can perhaps be a greater degree of standardisation in the success rate?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The academic content of the course and its organisation are not matters for me. The failure rates overall are remarkably low—currently 6·2 per cent. I am not aware of very great differences. If the hon. Gentleman has information which he would like to give me, I would be very willing to consider it.

    Teaching Profession (Entrants)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total of new entrants to the teaching profession in the school years of 1969–70, 1970–71; and what are the target totals for 1971–72 and 1972–73.
    Mrs. Thatcher: According to returns supplied by local education authorities, 32,754 in 1969–70 and 36,364 in 1970–71. The totals are likely to continue to rise during the period 1971–73.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Would it not help recruitment if an Act akin to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act were enacted in the near future? Do not many children and teachers labour under the disadvantage of teaching and being educated in schools which are still deplorably bad for this day and age?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Many schools are still deplorably bad, and I am doing my level best to get a school building programme to make them very much better than those I was left with.

    300 GeV Accelerator
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the progress of the project for the construction of the 300 GeV accelerator.
    Mrs. Thatcher: This accelerator is expected to take eight years to construct. Work on the detailed design continues.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the Government satisfied with the British contribution?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir.

    Scottish Business School
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek to make an official visit to the Scottish Business School in 1971.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. Lady accept our regret about that Answer? However, if she chooses to do so in the near future will she try, while preserving academic freedom, to persuade the three institutions involved in the Scottish Business School to come together and make one clear and distinct home for that institution?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Before visiting the school and finding out the facts I do not think I could undertake to do anything which would import a conclusion.

    Theatre Organisations (Subsidies)
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what
    1630
    progress she has made in her discussions with the Arts Council on the withholding of subsidies from subsidised theatre organisations on the ground of the possible offensive nature of the plays they intend to produce; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: A statement published on 30th April has now been made by the Arts Council.
    Mr. Strauss: Do I take it that the Minister accepts the Arts Council's admirable declaration which, in effect, says that it would not impose any censorship or control over the artistic theatrical bodies it subsidises?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Arts Council was never asked to act as censor. It is a very useful statement which says that it is necessary to recognise
    "that the welcome increase in the amount of subsidy, its deployment and distribution is very properly the subject of special and concentrated public scrutiny."
    It is a notable step forward that this has been so.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the only desirable form of censorship self-censorship? Have not the remarks of my noble Friend in the other place contributed notably to that end?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I believe that to be so.
    Mr. Faulds: Come, come. Does the Minister realise—
    Mr. Marten: Hit her with your handbag.
    Mr. Faulds: I am not one of those who ever carry one. There can be no doubt about that.
    Mr. Speaker: Come, come.
    Mr. Faulds: I will obey your admonition, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we are well aware that there have been pressures from the Paymaster-General on this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman now publicly share our delight that the Arts Council has resisted such improper pressures and has, in effect, told the Paymaster-General to take a running jump?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not think that a statement which includes the phrase
    "as subsidy increases it behoves the recipients of grants to justify that increase in terms of the general quality of the productions"
    is anything that can be described in those words. My view is that this is a very useful statement indeed.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. friend make it clear to the House that our noble Friend in another place has never suggested that there should be any censorship of any kind? Will my hon. Friend make the speech of my noble Friend compulsory reading for certain hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That is absolutely so. There has never been any suggestion that either my noble Friend or the Arts Council should be censors, but there has been a strong feeling—I think that this is a very successful outcome—that it is not proper for public money to be used without any kind of thought being given to the matter of productions which cause grave offence to a very wide number of people.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the statement issued by the Arts Council is a statement of its previous policy which it proposes to continue in future? As it is acceptable to his noble Friend, is this not a consummation about which everybody can be happy?
    Mr. van Stranbenzee: I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment. After all, he said publicly in the House that he would advise his colleagues to enter into no statement of any kind. We will spare his blushes.

    Books and Equipment (Expenditure)
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will direct those local education authorities whose expenditure on books and equipment is below that recommended by the Association of Education Committees to make more adequate provision.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I have always made clear my concern that adequate provision should be made; but this is a matter for local education authorities.
    Mr. Marks: Is there not a very grave disparity between what various authorities spend on books and equipment, the sums being spent by some authorities being abysmally low? At what stage does the right hon. Lady carry out the duties imposed on her by the 1944 Act and tell local authorities that they are not doing well enough?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Her Majesty's Inspector regularly visits schools, and I am sure he would let me know if there were any cause for alarm in any school.

    School Construction, Inner London (Cost Limits)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will increase the cost limits imposed by her Department on school building in the Inner London Education Authority area.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir. The cost limits for school building in England and Wales have only recently been raised by 13 per cent.
    Mr. Moyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that school building prices are rising more rapidly in London than in other parts of the country, to the point where they are the highest in the country, and that his Department's determination to hold to the rigid cost yardsticks will lead to a sharp deterioration in the future of school building in London unless the action suggested in the Question is taken?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows—and I offer this information genuinely to be of assistance—that where there are special problems in London—for example, of special site difficulties—ad hoc allowances can be made.

    Maladjusted Children
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will state, on the basis of information available, the number of places available, in maintained and non-maintained schools, respectively, for each of the last four years for maladjusted children; and whether she envisages any change in future provision for this type of handicapped child.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Since the reply to the first part of the Question consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am receiving from local education authorities an increasing number of proposals to build day special schools.
    Mr. Dormand: I shall study the figures with great care. Is the right hon. Lady aware of the considerable difficulty experienced by many local education authorities, particularly in the North of England, in placing maladjusted children? Does she agree that in view of the shortage of places her Department should take the initiative and make proposals for a major building programme, rather than wait for local education authorities to do so, even if it means making special financial arrangements for such provision?
    Mrs. Thatcher: In the past few years special priority has been given within the building programme for special schools to places for maladjusted children. There are now rather more than there were, and we shall look very carefully at the distribution of the next special school building programme.
    The information is as follows:

    NUMBER OF MALADJUSTED CHILDREN IN MAINTAINED AND NON-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND, 1967–70

    January 1967

    January 1968

    January 1969

    January 1970

    Maintained

    2,895

    3,342

    3,638

    4,084

    Non-maintained

    924

    922

    939

    954

    3,819

    4,264

    4,577

    5,038

    All places are normally taken up, so that the number of children approximates closely to the number of places.

    Sex Film, "Growing Up"
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters she has received about the sex film, "Growing Up".
    Mrs. Thatcher: Three hundred and one, Sir.
    Mr. Price: Whatever one's view of the film, is it not disturbing that teachers are so vulnerable to disciplinary action by reactionary councillors—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Rubbish.
    Mr. Price: —many of whom, like the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), live in the days when young women wore knee-length woollen breeches?
    Mr. Thatcher: I doubt very much whether that question warrants an answer.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of a television programme in Birmingham, when I called the author of the film a thoroughly immoral man, a vastly larger number of letters have descended on me than on my right hon. Friend, that 99 per cent. of such letters support my view concerning immorality, and that the first 100 as samples have already gone to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with an urgent request to cause the Director of Public Prosecutions to view the film and institute proceedings for obscenity and pornography?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am sure that my hon. Friend can deal very effectively with every single letter that has come to him. I am anxious that all the publicity about the film should not get the whole subject out of perspective, for some very excellent work on sex education is being done in the schools in a way of which the parents approve and which is tasteful and satisfactory to all concerned.
    Miss Lestor: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the near-hysteria which has broken out over the film, often from people who have not even seen it, has possibly damaged the whole very worthwhile field of sex education in our schools? Is it not worth mentioning that this week there has been public acclaim of the B.B.C. films on sex education shown to primary school children, although many of those films were condemned by people before they had seen them? Does she agree that if local education authorities decide that a film is not fit to be shown in schools, that should be the end of the matter, and there should not be a witch hunt as in the case of the young teacher concerned with the film which is the subject of the Question?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It will be very much to everyone's advantage if we hear no more about this film. I was very glad to receive the support of the Health Education Council, which has seen the

    1635
    film and has told me that in its view, having considered all the factors, it is not suitable for use in schools.
    Mr. Maude: Will my right hon. Friend represent to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) the fact that knee-length breeches for young women have become rather groovy wear nowadays?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Cardiff on 2nd April on the economy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Barnett: Will the Prime Minister tell us what consideration he has given, following his conversations this morning with the West German Chancellor about the Deutschmark crisis, to the possible consequences to Government policy on the economic and monetary front?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that amongst a large number of subjects which I discussed with the Federal German Chancellor this morning the currency situation was obviously one. But I think the House will agree that experience has shown that on the whole it is better not to comment on currency matters at this time.

    DEPARTMENTS (MINISTERS)
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a further Minister of State at the Home Office.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister if he will now give consideration to the appointment of an additional Minister at the Department of Employment.
    The Prime Minister: Unless and until I make an announcement to the contrary, I do not propose to increase or reduce the number of Ministers in any Department, or to alter the present allocation of functions to Departments.
    Mr. Archer: While I hoped, when I set down the Question, to persuade the Prime Minister to bring matters relating to
    1636
    the family under a single administration, will he now take pity on the overworked Ministers at the Home Office and appoint someone to spend the whole of his time trying to understand the policy and draftsmanship of the Immigration Bill, thus sparing the Standing Committee many wasted hours?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. and learned Gentleman described in the second part of his supplementary question is a normal legislative process; the Bill can be discussed in detail in Committee, which is what is happening. As to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, when reorganising the structure of Whitehall, I gave very careful consideration to this complex of problems, but it has proved absolutely impossible to ensure that everything comes under one Department.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Prime Minister agree that his answer shows a callous disregard of the problems of unemployment and employment opportunities? Does he propose to ignore the calamitous political defeat he suffered in Scotland this week at the municipal elections, and the almost certain equally calamitous defeat he will suffer in the municipal elections in England and Wales next week?
    The Prime Minister: There does not seem to be any question in those few remarks. As far as Ministers are concerned, I do not propose to make any further changes until another announcement.
    Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fallacy to imagine that the creation of more Ministers necessarily helps to solve problems?
    The Prime Minister: That fallacy was effectively exposed under the last Administration.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is not it time the Prime Minister appointed to the Welsh Office Ministers who are responsible to the Welsh electorate?
    The Prime Minister: We are a United Kingdom.

    LUXEMBOURG
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Luxembourg.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Would not such a visit serve to remind my right hon. Friend that Luxembourg, although the smallest member of the E.E.C., in no way feels pushed around by its bigger partners, and, as a full member, has been well able to look after what it considers to be its own national interests? Does not my right hon. Friend believe that such reassurance would bring great comfort to many of our fellow-citizens about British entry?
    The Prime Minister: If I were to go to Luxembourg again, it would remind me of the pleasant times I spent there during the 1961–63 negotiations? I think my hon. Friend is right. Under the Treaty of Rome, Luxembourg has its rights and voting power and has been able to exercise them.

    LOW-INCOME FAMILIES (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the change in the number of families living below the supplementary benefit line since June, 1970; and whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of the Environment, Health and Social Security, and Employment, in reducing this figure.
    The Prime Minister: A precise estimate cannot be made until the relevant statistics of earnings movements become available later in 1971. The best judgment that the Department of Health and Social Security is at present able to make is that there has probably been a reduction in the number of such families since June, 1970. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes".
    Mr. Meacher: Despite that extraordinary conclusion, will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless confirm that the special survey of the low-paid, which for several months the Government have been too embarrassed to publish, reveals that there are more than 1 million families in which the breadwinner in full-time work is earning a wage less than the supplementary benefit poverty line? Does he not agree that with the de-escalation of wages in the public sector, in which most of these
    1638
    low-wage earners are to be found, higher health service charges and other increased charges, for all of which the Government are directly responsible, the poor today are poorer under the Conservative Administration than they have ever been?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise about the low-paid being mainly in the public sector. In any case, many of them are covered by individual councils. The Government have taken action to deal specifically with low-wage-earning families. A family of four children with an income of up to £17 a week will gain twice as much from the family income supplement as a similar family with £100 a week will receive from the October and Budget measures.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it may not be in the interests of certain workers under the Government's proposals to seek a wage increase, because the increase might be more than offset by the increased charges which they will then become subject to? Indeed, there might be a growth of demands for wage decreases by some in order to qualify for the means-tested services which the Government are now introducing.
    The Prime Minister: That is one aspect of the matter that we had to consider carefully when creating the family income supplement. But I do not believe that there is genuine evidence that trade union effectiveness on behalf of the lower-paid workers will be undermined by the F.I.S.

    PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has now received about the increased prescription charges and what replies he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: Thirteen, Sir. The replies explain the part played by increased charges in enabling additional resources to be made available to the health and welfare services, and the extensive exemption arrangements for those in need.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Secretary of State to drop the cost-related prescription charges, which will deter many working-class

    1639
    people from receiving medicine they badly need? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard these charges as a contribution towards his concept of one nation?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the existing arrangements for prescription charges. If there were to be any change, obviously my right hon. Friend would come to the House and there would be a debate about it.
    Mr. Thorpe: If the Government are insistent, for doctrinaire reasons, on pressing on with prescription charges, surely we can expect an announcement that the idea of varying charges in accordance with the medicines prescribed will be dropped, since if the right hon. Gentleman has not discovered that this is administratively impossible, everyone else has?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. These are matters which have to be carefully examined, and it is not the case that everyone else has decided that any change in the present system is administratively impossible. There is no intention of dropping the present system completely and abolishing all charges. Nor do I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party want.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister discuss, as a matter of urgency, with the Secretary of State the crisis which has arisen since 1st April in one area of increased charges—the treatment of schizophrenia and mental illness? Is he aware that the increase has placed doctors dealing with these illnesses in great difficulty because they cannot prescribe large amounts at once and because multi-drug treatment is required? Is this not one special category of chronic sickness deserving special attention?
    The Prime Minister: I am prepared to arrange with my right hon. Friend that this should be examined.

    BREWING INDUSTRY
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the public that he set up a Ministry with exclusive responsibility
    1640
    to safeguard the interests of the brewing industry.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is this not due to the fact that the public realise that the entire Conservative Party is there to represent the interests of the brewing industry? How does he reconcile his views on the value of competition with the fact that the quality of British beer is going steadily down year by year?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, so newly come to the House, should not allow himself to be captured by the outmoded shibboleths of his own Front Bench. If he is suggesting that there should be some additional control over beer, all I can tell him is that the British public have no desire for further interference in their public houses, least of all from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware, following his strictures on my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), that my hon. Friend has had an opportunity since coming to this House of sampling some of the best beer in the country, and that that beer did not come from private brewers?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to buy what he wants.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the brewing industry has the pathetic record of 1 per cent. exports—which, compared with the export figure for Scotch whisky, is abysmal? Does he realise that it exports only 1 per cent. because in comparison with foreign beers and lagers our beer is nowhere near as strong or as good value for money? This is the sixteenth biggest industry in the country. Is it not time the Government inquired into the way in which it has been monopolised by seven breweries?
    The Prime Minister: I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman thinks he is encouraging exports of British beer by running down good British beer. I find that it is as good as any I can get in Europe and North America, and I would always stick to British beer.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As a representative of a hop-growing constituency, would my

    1641
    right hon. Friend recognise that the only thing which is wrong with British beer is that it is taxed too heavily? As a supporter of a value-added tax, would he also recognise that if beer is included in a value-added tax the price of it to British men and women will drop dramatically?
    The Prime Minister: In addition, of course, any value-added tax on beer can be removed when it is exported, in accordance with the desire of hon. Members opposite. I have sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has said because I come from the best hop-growing county.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the value-added tax intended to replace the Excise duty on beer or not?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must await my right hon. Friend's final proposal.

    PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT those official visits he intends to make in the remainder of 1971.
    The Prime Minister: Such visits are announced as and when they are arranged.
    Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members believe that the number of official visits he is prepared to make is inadequate? Will he, therefore, extend his list and make official visits to the West Midlands to meet the unemployed? Or is he so insensitive on the subject of unemployment that he will force thousands of the unemployed to march on London to No. 10 Downing Street during the coming winter in order to bring their problems to his attention?
    The Prime Minister: No one has ever accused me before of being insensitive to the problems of the unemployed. As far as visits are concerned, my responsibility is first to the House of Commons and to Government business and then to be prepared to make visits in the country. I make a considerable number of visits but the proportion must be kept in balance.
    Mr. Atkinson: I do not think anyone will accuse the Prime Minister of being insensitive to unemployment because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—for something like seven years we listened to him protesting most vehemently about the unemployment figures when they were nearly half the present level.
    Mr. Burden: Is it not peculiar that the Opposition behave as if there were no unemployment when they were in Government? Although there has been a growth in unemployment, why did they not take the same attitude when there was considerable unemployment during their term of office?
    The Prime Minister: It may be peculiar, but what is undoubtedly characteristic now is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have absolutely no policies for dealing with wage demands or unemployment.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Will the Prime Minister answer the question I put to him last week, namely, when are we to have the stroke by which he will cut unemployment and rising prices?
    The Prime Minister: We have discussed this on many occasions. Even when the action is taken the hon. Gentleman will not recognise it.
    Captain W. Elliot: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the real arbiter of the level of unemployment in this country is the overseas customer, and if our prices are too high, nothing on earth will make him buy our products? Will my right hon. Friend continue his valiant efforts to tackle the disease and not be misled by the symptoms?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that there is a growing realisation throughout the country that it is possible to price ourselves out of export markets and for men and women to price themselves out of jobs. It is this realisation which is now leading to the change in attitudes that we are finding.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance about a matter concerning answers by the Prime Minister at Question Time. It appears that the Answer which the Prime Minister

1643
gave to Questions 2 and 4 was part of tactics being deliberately pursued by his Department to block answers. Since you are the protector of the rights of back benchers, may I ask you to study the matter when it appears in HANSARD.
If my recollection is right, the effect of the Answer is that no hon. Member can put a Question to the Prime Minister about the appointment of additional Ministers. I am connected with the power and steel group and the mining industry group and have in the past endeavoured to put Questions to the Prime Minister about certain important matters concerning these groups. The Prime Minister gave them what he has given today—a blocking Answer preventing hon. Members from putting down Questions about Ministerial appointments. This is a serious matter for back benchers who wish to question the right hon. Gentleman on these issues. I would ask you to examine the Answer and to assist the House on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the importance which the hon. Member attaches to this, but I do not think it is a Question for the Chair. Since he has asked me to examine it, I will willingly do so. The organisation of Questions and the content of Answers are not matters for the Chair. They are matters, if need be, for the Select Committee on Procedure or the usual channels.
Mr. Peter Archer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are considering the matter, would you consider the extent to which it is in the unfettered discretion of the Prime Minister to decide which Questions he will link for the purposes of an Answer, since Questions 2 and 4 have nothing in common except that they admitted of the same blocking answer?
Mr. Onslow: Would you also consider, Mr. Speaker, that it might be very much in the interests of the House as a whole that my right hon. Friend should continue to give answers which prevent boring and repetitive Questions from the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: That confirms my view that it is time the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition asked the business question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 10TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Mineral Workings Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order and on the Valuation (Mines and Quarries) (Scotland) Order.
TUESDAY, 11TH MAY and WEDNESDAY, 12TH MAY—Progress on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
At the end on Wednesday—
Motions on the Drivers' Hours (Passenger and Goods Vehicles) (Modification) Order and on the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme.
THURSDAY, 13TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill [Lords] and of the Water Resources Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Industrial Training Levy (Air Transport and Travel) (Amendment) Order.
FRIDAY, 14TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 17TH MAY—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: The topic to be debated will be announced later.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we pressed him earlier for a debate on the situation in Pakistan and Bengal? Since the matter will come up, as I understand it, next Friday on a Private Member's Motion from this side of the House, will he take it from us that in these circumstances we no longer press for Government time on this, although depending on the Government answer we may wish to revert to this topic?
Secondly, in relation to next week, having regard to the point of order raised just now, if you, Mr. Speaker, having looked at this, decide, as seemed to be

1645
your first impression, that Prime Ministerial Answers are not matters for the Chair, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will undertake that there will be discussions through the usual channels to ensure that, while there can obviously be no inhibition on the answers given by a Prime Minister, anxieties that the scope of Questions is being progressively—or regressively—narrowed can he dealt with?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for what he says. He rightly points out that his hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has a Motion down on the subject on 14th May and the House can then consider the question. I would only add that, as and when there are any developments, I know that the Foreign Secretary would naturally wish to keep the House informed.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, about Prime Minister's Questions' you, Mr. Speaker, have said that you will look into this, and that is a matter for you. The House would be well advised to await what you decide. On the general merits of the question, all I can say is that I noticed no change of practice and it seemed that my right hon. Friend was asked a Question and gave a very satisfactory Answer.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On that latter point, there is a change in practice, there is a narrowing and it must be discussed. On the first question, the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken that there will be statements from time to time. Would he also discuss the question of his right hon. Friend being able to make a statement to the House, in advance of the debate on Friday, on the suggestion I made two weeks ago that we should press for international observers in this Commonwealth country, as was done by general agreement in Nigeria, to deal with accusations of genocide?
Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I think that we should wait and see how we get on. On the second point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to this in answer to Questions on Tuesday, but I know that if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has any useful infor-
1646
mation to give to the House he will immediately come and do so.
Mr. Marten: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion 510, which deals with fishing and the Common Market negotiations?
[That this House believes that matters essential to the future prosperity of the British fishing industry such as the access to coastal waters, grading, minimum prices and the importation of fish fillets should be negotiated with the European Economic Community prior to Parliament being asked to approve British entry.]
As the Norwegian Government have made a clear statement of where they stand, may we have a statement, possibly next week, to show where the British Government stand, and at the same time making it certain that this matter becomes a principle in our negotiations equivalent to New Zealand and Commonwealth sugar?
Mr. Whitelaw: As my hon. Friend appreciates, this is clearly a matter for the negotiations. Meetings are taking place next week, after which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement to the House.
Mr. William Rodgers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether we may expect a statement next week on the future of the RB211 engine?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, there will be a statement on the position of the RB211 engine on Monday.
Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us think it would be valuable to have a debate on metrication before we reach the point of no return?
Mr. Whitelaw: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government have promised a White Paper on this subject. After the publication of the White Paper there will be an opportunity for a debate. If my right hon. Friend thinks that there should be a debate before the publication of the White Paper—and I cannot say when it will be published—certainly that course can be considered.
Mr. Oram: Is not a debate on overseas aid overdue? Although a Bill dealing

1647
with the encouragement of private investment in developing countries is due, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a debate on that Bill would be too narrow, and that wider issues of overseas aid and development need to be debated?
Mr. Whitelaw: Whether or not a debate is overdue, I readily undertook that there should be such a debate, and I hope to bring it on as soon as I reasonably can.
Mr. Farr: At what time is the debate on the Water Resources Bill on Thursday likely to commence, and how long will the House have to discuss Amendments?
Mr. Whitelaw: The answer, as always on these occasions, must be that it depends how long the Bill before that Bill takes.
Mr. Marks: Is the Leader of the House aware that there have been only two major debates on education since the General Election, both on Opposition Motions? Does not he think that the importance of and the rate of expenditure on education warrant some Government time on this subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally, I appreciate the importance of the subject. I would not care to speculate, without checking, how debates on education have arisen in the past. Supply Days are concerned with the expenditure of money, and that is obviously a reasonable way of raising the subject of education.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on both sides of the House there is anxiety about the Government's policy towards the international monetary difficulties now emerging, tempered only by a realisation that it is possibly indelicate for a statement to be made at this point of time? Since there is a likelihood that on Monday decisons will have been taken to allow the German central banks to permit open foreign exchange, may we expect a statement of the Government's attitude early next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I can follow my hon. Friend that there is anxiety about the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter. As for what may follow, we must wait to see what
1648
happens in the next few days in other places.
Mr. Donald Stewart: On what day will the Motion on the appointment of Members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs come before the House, to enable me to register my protest against exclusion from that Committee? Since I represent a substantial minority opinion, my exclusion from the Committee amounts to gerrymandering.
Mr. Whitelaw: In answering the hon. Gentleman's question, it is only fair to point out that the representation on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has to take account of the representation in the House. I therefore cannot accept his charges of gerrymandering. The precedent of the House in this matter has simply been followed. As to when the Motion will be before the House, I should like to have discussions through the usual channels, but to allow an opportunity for any questions about it to be raised, I would certainly hope to put it down early next week.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we shall debate the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner, in the light of the Report of the Select Committee which has been refuted by the recommendations of the Government?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot offer time for such a debate in the near future. The Government's position on this Report was made perfectly clear.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Leader of the House mentioned that a Scottish Rating Order would be included in Monday's business. Will sufficient time be allowed to enable us to expand on the reasons why the Scottish electorate have completely rejected 'the Government's policy on local government finance?
Mr. Whitelaw: Without wishing to follow the hon. Gentleman in his point, I can say that there will be plenty of time to discuss the Order.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling among the communities of East Pakistan, or Bangla-Desh, resident in this country that we have shown insufficient concern about the situation, that

1649
we are not doing enough to relieve this great tragedy and have failed to condemn the immense brutality of the West Pakistan army? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement early next week, and will he also make arrangements for a debate so that this issue may be discussed?
Mr. Whitelaw: If there is any feeling of complacency about this, I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would regret it. I do not think it can be said that there has been complacency on the part of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made our position, and what we are seeking to do, very clear, and so has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to Questions. There will be an opportunity for debating this matter on the Private Members' Motion next Friday, when the points made by the hon. Gentleman can be deployed.
Mr. Leadbitter: The Leader of the House will be aware of the Motion in my name, supported by 130 right hon. and hon. Members, on the steel industry.
[That this House deplores the effect of Her Majesty's Government's policies and attitudes which are damaging the long-term development plans of the British Steel Corporation; asserts that the increasing levels of redundancy in the industry are unacceptable; declares that the lowest level of steel production for eight years could have been avoided; protests that Government interference on steel prices and public utterances of nonintervention are contradictory postures frustrating the good management of the industry and its production potential; regrets that no steps have been taken to reduce the importation of steel and steel pipes; objects to announcements of closures and redundancies in breach of assurances of prior consultation or without any statement in the House of Commons; and draws attention to the lack of Government policy to change the course of events in the steel industry at a time when the unemployment figures in the country have reached the highest level in 30 years.]
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the recent comments of Lord Melchett, the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, published in the Press
1650
this week. He will also be aware of the redundancies in the industry, the uncertainty and the lack of confidence which prevails about future investment policies. Will the Leader of the House reflect the concern of hon. Members and of the people who work in the industry and discharge the responsibility of the Government by giving time for a debate on this subject? In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), the Leader of the House gave a specific undertaking to make changes to allow for a debate. On 26th April, the Leader of the House said that he would honour what he had said. Will he now do so and give us Government time for a debate on steel?
Mr. Whitelaw: I answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) last week, I undertook that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for trade and industry would make a statement to the House as soon as his short-term review was completed. I cannot say exactly when that will be. I understood the right hon. Gentleman and the House to feel that it would be right to await any debate in the House until such a statement could be made. If that is not the position, I unreservedly apologise, and once I have checked with HANSARD I can accept that position. If that is not the case, I note that there is a request for a debate, but I cannot say when it will be possible. As for my own undertakings, I have checked every word I said most carefully and I cannot see in anything I said that I gave a specific undertaking for a debate on the steel industry, apart from the question of redundancies. I gave no undertaking for Government time for a debate away from that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute it, I am only too pleased, but that is my reading of the words.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the debate on overseas aid will take place before Whitsun? Has he anything further to say about the debate on the White Paper on local government reorganisation?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have undertaken that there will be a debate on local government reorganisation. I cannot say exactly when it will be, but I hope certainly before Whitsun. As for the debate on overseas aid, I will bring it forward

1651
as soon as I can. I cannot promise that it will be before Whitsun.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the recent appalling series of accidents on the M1, will the right hon. Gentleman in the near future give the House an opportunity to discuss safety on the motorways?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the importance of the subject the hon. Gentleman raises and I appreciate his particular interest in it. I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries to what he has said. I cannot offer time for a debate in the near future.
Mr. Lipton: Has the Leader of the House seen Motion No. 538, which draws his attention to what I consider to be undesirable mushroom growths in life assurance where speculators and go-getters are now seeking to exploit the public? What does he intend to do about that Motion?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to introduce more stringent controls of new life assurance companies now being developed on the basis of high-pressure sales techniques and high commission rates.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think it would be profitable for me to take up the hon. Gentleman's arguments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be aware of that Motion. I cannot promise time to debate it in the near future.
Mr. Kaufman: In view of the outrageous occurrence last night when seven Northern Ireland Members voted to take away investment grant from Great Britain which they have made sure of keeping for their own industry in Northern Ireland, will the Leader of the House undertake to bring before the House next week a Bill to take away from Northern Ireland Members the right to vote in this House on matters relating only to Great Britain?
Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, nothing outrageous occurred. It was entirely in accordance with normal practice. The answer to the second part of the question is, no.
Dr. Gilbert: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to add anything to the answer he gave before Easter in respect of a debate on the Crowther Report on consumer credit? Could he bear in mind that there are serious anomalies in the present law and that the recommendations affect every household?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the importance of the subject. I cannot say when time can be found for a debate, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Kilfedder: Would the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the question of increasing the number of Members from Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have a smaller number of Members in this House than they should have compared with the electoral quota in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will not take up my hon. Friend's points on matters which are normally the concern of Boundary Corn-mission reports. I am afraid I cannot offer any time for a debate on the matters he has raised.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take only two more business questions.
Mr. Ross: In view of the fact that a clear opinion against the Government has been expressed by the people of Scotland on the local elections, is it the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an announcement about the withdrawal of the Education (Scotland) Bill and of Scottish participation in the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.
Sir G. Nabarro: Has not my right hon. Friend misunderstood the question earlier by the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) on consumer credit? Is it not a fact that we are anxiously awaiting a statement from the Government as to their policy on the Crowther Report on this subject, notably in the context of the motor industry which is seriously afflicted at present and urgently needs relief from hire purchase restrictions?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's

1653
question because he asked me about time for a debate, to which I replied.
Sir G. Nabarro: I want a statement.
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate that my hon. Friend wants something different from what I was previously asked. I will undertake to consider with my right hon. Friend when such a statement will be made to the House.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must move on. I have called every Member who got up in the first 15 minutes of questions on business.
Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ought to be fair to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who raised a question about exactly what I had said. I would like to look at the words I used with the hon. Gentlemen concerned and, if they can prove to me that my words indicated that there would be a debate on steel in Government time, I will honour it at once.
Mr. Leadbitter: I accept what the Leader of the House has said. I thank him for his good will on this matter and I will see him behind Mr. Speaker's Chair.

BILL PRESENTED
  PENSIONS (INCREASE)
  The Prime Minister, supported by Mr. Secretary Maudling, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mrs. Secretary Thatcher, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Walker, Mr. Richard Wood, and Mr. David Howell, presented a Bill to replace the Pensions (Increase) Acts 1920 to 1969 and make further provision for increases and supplements to be paid on certain pensions and related benefits: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  RENTS AND RATES
  Mr. Speaker: I would point out that I have selected the Amendment which stands in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Crosland: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the policies of Her Majesty's Government which are designed to increase the cost of housing and the burdens of the domestic ratepayer.
  The operative word in the Motion is "designed". We are here talking about deliberate policies which have the effect of increasing the cost of housing and the burden on the domestic ratepayer. This point needs to be emphasised because the Government constantly try to give the impression that none of the increases in prices or in the cost of living is designed or deliberate but that these matters are all outside the Government's control. They are all the fault of the trade unions, uncontrollable wage inflation and malignant external forces which have nothing to do with the Government or with their policies.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last Thursday in the debate on unemployment moved an Amendment which spoke of
  "… cost inflation caused by excessive pay settlements."
  It was as though the rise in costs was wholly external to Government policies and could all be blamed on greedy and irresponsible workers. The Government cannot evade their responsibilities in this way. Their argument is nonsense, and it is increasingly seen to be nonsense as the results in the Scottish local elections have shown so devastatingly.
  First, the Government's argument is totally inconsistent with all they said last June. They were then confident that they could deal with cost inflation. They fought the General Election almost entirely on the issue of prices and the

  1655
  cost of living. The Prime Minister then made his now notorious remarks about breaking into the wage price spiral and how he would at a stroke reduce the rise in prices. Then the Conservative Manifesto said:
  "We will give overriding priority to bringing the present inflation under control."
  In other words, they then accepted full responsibility for the behaviour of prices and the cost of living. It was not something which was outside Government control. Rising prices were considered to be something that could be got rid of at a stroke. Cost inflation was to be brought under control by new marvellous Tory policies the like of which which the country had never before seen.
  The General Election raises the interesting point of whether it was more or less dishonest than previous Tory election campaigns. The party opposite have always set a very high standard of unscrupulousness in General Election campaigns—right back from 1924 when there was the Zinoviev Letter, 1931 with the Post Office Savings scare, 1935 with Baldwin's lies about rearmament and 1945 with the Churchill Gestapo scare. Although it is a matter no doubt for a moralist rather than a politician to decide, I would think that last June's election campaign exceeded all others in its total hypocrisy and dishonesty.
  According to what the Tories were saying last June, the present 8½ per cent. inflation from which we are now suffering was not a matter outside the Government's control, and basically they were right. It is due to the Government's policy, or rather the lack of any Government policy whatever, for prices and incomes. We have had the abolition of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the abolition of the Consumer Council and a total absence of any powers over prices in the private sector.
  It is not only a question of the total lack of any policy to contain prices, the total lack of any policy to reduce inflation at a stroke. It is also a deliberate policy of raising prices and charges in order to reduce the burden on the better off taxpayer. This is true of rent and rates, which I shall deal with in detail. It is also true of school meals, school milk, cheap welfare milk, prescription
  1656
  charges, dental charges, opticians' charges, commuter fares, and food prices. None of these is due simply to wage inflation, to the trade unions or to malign external forces. All are due to deliberate Government policy. It is a policy designed not only to raise the cost of living but to redistribute income, since all these charges fall more heavily on the less well off while the corresponding tax reductions primarily benefit the better off.
  I turn to the two points in our Motion. The first is the cost of housing, and I start with the public sector of housing. We know that the Government intend this sector to decline. We know that from the notorious speech of the Secretary of State in June, 1969. That was the speech which contained the famous phrase
  "… for all sorts of seemingly good reasons."
  The Secretary of State has moved into the stratosphere recently and is now confining himself to major matters affecting the environment. He has been making some admirable decisions and speeches about the environment, meanwhile leaving the dirty work on rents and rates to his two subordinate Ministers.
  In that speech in June, 1969, when he was still involved in these matters of detail, the Secretary of State said:
  "… the stock of 30 per cent. of housing now in local authority hands is far too high with the level of wages."
  So we know what to expect so far as the public house building programme is concerned.
  I am concerned today with rents. Millions of our citizens live in council houses, and their rents are a matter of urgent and widespread public concern. The Labour Government introduced two Measures to keep rents at a reasonable level during a period of exceptionally high interest rates—
  An Hon. Member: S.E.T.
  Mr. Crosland: First, we increased greatly the housing subsidies paid to local authorities. Secondly, we limited rent increases, first, through the 1968 Prices and Incomes Act, and then through the 1969 Rent (Control of Increases) Act. Both Acts broadly restricted increases in rents to an average of 7s. 6d. in any one year. Under the former Act, 229 local

  1657
  authorities, mostly Tory-controlled, had their rent increases rejected, and huge increases they frequently were. In 1968, the Tory-controlled G.L.G. sought to increase rents by up to 70 per cent. Under the 1969 Act, the limitation has continued and, as the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) in answer to a Question yesterday, even since the June election seven proposals for rent increases have been rejected. Apparently even a Tory Government think for the moment that some control is needed.
  Captain Walter Elliot: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Labour Government's restrictions on rent increases, he referred to the G.L.C. As a result of the restrictions placed on the G.L.C., can he say what extra burden went on the ratepayer to make up the housing account?
  Mr. Crosland: I will look up the precise answer and ask my hon. Friend to give it when he replies to the debate.
  There is no doubt that the previous Government, as indeed the present Government have done seven times since 18th June, prevented what they believed to be excessive rent increases. Yet it appears from Answers given by the Under-Secretary—although the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment does not by any means give unconfusing answers—and by the Minister that the 1969 Act is not to be extended when it expires at the end of June. In fact, quite the reverse is true. In the autumn we are to have legislation which, so far from limiting rent increases, will require local authorities to bring in a system of fair rents. In other words, the legislation will compel local authorities to increase their rents, often by very much more than 7s. 6d. per week.
  In this case, we have not merely the Government's habitual abdication of responsibility for controlling prices. We have another deliberate decision to force up prices. It is a decision which has nothing to do with the trade unions, with wage inflation and with malign external forces. It is due to a deliberate action on the part of the Government.
  While I am on the cost of housing, I heard an hon. Member opposite refer just
  1658
  now to S.E.T. It will be interesting if the Minister can tell us what the effect of the value-added tax is likely to be on the cost of housing. I should be surprised if it was not more severe than the effect of S.E.T.
  On fair rents, the first matter that we have to try to decide is what will be the amount of the rise in rents as a result of the new policy. I wish to make two quotations, the first of which is from Housing Review of January/February, 1971, which says:
  "It has been estimated that to raise all council rents to fair-rents might mean a global increase of £1,000 million, bringing them to about £4 a week more than at present—twice as much again as the average unrebated rent of 40s. 9d."
  That suggests a trebling of average unrebated rents.
  We have also a reply from the Under-Secretary of State to a Parliamentary Question on 17th February, in which he said:
  "At 31st March, 1969, the average unrebated weekly rent of council dwellings was £2.75 in Greater London and £2.04 in England and Wales as a whole. The average fair rent determined by rent assessment committees in 1970 was £5.90 a week in Greater London"—
  as compared with £2.75—
  "and £4.95 in England and Wales."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1818.]—
  as compared with £2.04. That would suggest increases of 2½ times.
  There are, of course, differences between the two groups of dwellings which are being compared. They cannot be compared accurately. But it is clear that the average increase in rents will be at least 100 per cent., that in some areas it will be very much more than 100 per cent., and that, if new houses and flats are to be fair-rented immediately, it will be greatly in excess of that. In London, already we are beginning to see unrebated rents of £8 and £9, and, on one estate in Camden, up to £12 a week.
  If these calculations are wrong, no doubt the Minister will contradict them. He has all the figures available in his Department, and he has plenty of time, even between now and next Thursday, to tell us what he thinks the average increase in rents will be as a result of fair rents. However, I doubt whether he will tell us before next Thursday. If he is good enough to tell us, I am certain

  1659
  that his figures will not be lower than the estimates that I have given.
  Mr. James Allason: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he was not comparing like with like. But nevertheless he went on to say that he had made calculations. Is not it ridiculous to introduce the first figures when they do not match at all?
  Mr. Crosland: The figures which I quoted first were taken from Housing Review, which obviously is a highly expert and reputable journal. The Minister knows the figures. If mine are wrong, let him give the correct ones. That will provide a simple answer to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). There is considerable interest in the answer.
  I am not arguing that rents should never rise, and I have never argued that the present pattern of housing finance is ideal. It is not, and it needs to be reviewed. However, so drastic a rise in rents as this will be will have a disastrous effect on the housing situation.
  In passing, the Government claim that this is the most revolutionary change in housing policy for half a century. It may be that it is. In that case, it would surely have been more democratic and more consistent with the Prime Minister's views about open government if they had issued a Green Paper on the subject. We know that private discussions are going on with the local authority associations. If the Government had issued a Green Paper the whole country could have participated in this crucially important debate.
  As to fair rents, I ask, first, whether the proposal for so-called fair rents has any logic. I believe the answer to be no. The Secretary of State and the Minister who is to follow me are very fond of saying that because the Labour Government introduced fair rents into the private sector therefore it is logical to introduce them into the public sector. They take surprisingly little pride of authorship here; they seem to want to appear positively in the role of plagiarists. But, as the Under-Secretary reminded us on 17th February, and as we have just agreed in another context, there are marked differences between the public and private sectors.
  1660
  Fair rents in the private sector are designed to give the landlord a reasonable profit for good maintenance and improvement and to eliminate scarcity values in places like London. But no such reasons apply in the public sector. Indeed, generally, as the National Board for Prices and Incomes pointed out in a report which some Ministers, at any rate, have evidently not read:
  "it would seem anomalous to relate the rents of the growing public sector to those of the declining private sector; and this anomaly would increase with the years ".
  It would certainly be the tail wagging the dog with a vengeance. So I say that there is no logic in the extension of this principle to council housing.
  What will be the economic effects of introducing fair rents? I believe that they will be disastrous. Such a huge increase in the cost of housing, to begin with, will give another very sharp twist to the spiral of prices and wages; and, in the long term, the disincentive effect of the rebate scheme could be even more serious. I believe that Ministers have not thought this through. With rents as high as so-called "fair rents" will be, any rebate scheme worthy of the name will have to cover a clear majority of council house tenants. It will, for the first time, have to cover those on average earnings, and in London probably above. Indeed, if new houses and flats are to be "fair rented" immediately, and if there is to be no rent pooling, probably all their tenants would have to be rebated, unless the houses and flats are to be let either to middle-class people or to those on supplementary benefits. Brent and Camden, among the London boroughs, give us some inkling of what we are likely to see.
  It is not only rent rebates; it is also rebates on school meals, prescription charges, welfare milk, dental charges, rates, and so on. As the Government put the charges up, so the rebates are extended to more people than ever before. We shall soon find that large groups of workers in particular income brackets—say, between £20 and £30 a week—will face a loss of income at the margin, if their incomes rise, of 100 per cent. or more. First, they will lose the family income supplement; then they will start to pay income tax; then they will pay heavily graduated National Insurance contributions; and, one by one, they will

  1661
  lose these various rebates. So we shall have a marginal rate of taxation of 100 per cent.—a remarkable achievement for the Tory Party which for years has lectured us all on the disincentive effects of high taxation. Apparently, disincentives apply only to business executives; not to ordinary workers.
  What will be the social effects of "fair rents" for council houses? At one end, the better-off tenants—this is what the Government want—will be driven out of council houses into buying houses, so reducing the social mix on housing estates and pushing us back towards the disastrous and obsolete concept of one-class housing for the deserving poor. This hardly seems a notable contribution to the Prime Minister's alleged ideal of "one nation".
  At the other end, what is to happen to the poorer tenants? Contrary to what some ignorant Tories believe—I hope no Tory Member of Parliament—there are a lot of poorer tenants on council estates. If we did not know it from our own experience, we know it from the detailed figures given in the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Tories say that all the council tenants have Jaguars.
  Mr. Crosland: But these are the few without the Jaguar at the front door. These poorer tenants are to be protected, so the Government tell us, by rent rebates, supplementary benefits, and, in the private sector, the new rent allowance. I greatly welcome this allowance in principle, subject to proper safeguards about the fixing of the rent and the state of repair.
  Where is all the money to come from? A great deal of money will be needed in this new situation. With "fair rents" for council houses amounting to double or more the present levels of rent, far more people will be eligible for rent rebates than now, and the average size of rebate will be much greater. On top of these more widespread rent rebates in the public sector, we have to find the money for the new rent allowance in the private sector. Clearly, the Government will not find the money. So far from finding more money, the Govern-
  1662
  ment have said that they will reduce by £100 million to £200 million the subsidy bill in 1973–74 compared with what it would otherwise have been. So they will not find the money.
  Where will the money come from? It becomes clear, although it has not yet been recognised by the general public, that it will come from the housing revenue account. Subject to any contradiction from the Minister, council tenants, paying double or more their present rents, will produce a huge surplus in the housing revenue account. The Government, determined to save their £100 million to £200 million in the putative subsidy bill, will increasingly force local authorities to use this surplus for the payment of rent rebates, the private rent allowance and probably a contribution to supplementary benefits as well.
  My firm prophecy is that the Government will more and more push the responsibility for curing poverty and for the whole rebate and allowance scheme on to the local authorities, and the local authorities will be forced to pass it on to the council tenants.
  What is the equity in all this? Council house tenants will pay much more; the national taxpayer will pay much less. Rents—a regressive charge with many social implications—will go up prodigiously; national taxes, which are broadly progressive, will go relatively down. In other words, we see the regular pattern of this Government's actions—a large and deliberate increase in the cost of living and a redistribution of income from the less well off to the better off.
  My hon. Friends will no doubt discuss other aspects of the Government's housing policy—the disastrous effect which the huge cut in the subsidy bill must have on local council building, the accelerated move from regulated to controlled rents in the private sector with no adequate guarantee of bringing premises up to modern standards, and the heartless refusal—heartless certainly in the context of London—to do anything about the growing exploitation of the tenant in furnished accommodation.
  We cannot say anything in detail in the debate about the owner-occupier, because there is no new Government policy to discuss. We read in the Press—everything that the Government do we are

  1663
  able to read in the Press—about talks between the Ministry and the building societies, but so far we have no inkling as to where they may lead. So far, therefore, the Government are essentially following a continuation of the Labour Government's policies—the option mortgage scheme, 100 per cent. mortgages, a high level of local authority mortgage lending, and so on. Those policies gave unprecedented help to the owner-occupier. As a result, for the first time in British history, and under a Labour Government, over 50 per cent. of our dwellings are owner-occupied.
  If and when the Government produce new proposals on this front we shall examine them with great care. I give only this warning. Some Ministerial statements about housing have a strong whiff of ideology about them. They show a strong emotional commitment to the owner-occupier and a certain contempt for the council house tenant. They certainly seem to ignore—
  An Hon. Member: Rubbish.
  Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, as I have, to those Ministerial statements, he would realise that there is no doubt about what I am saying. They seem to ignore the fact that although the council house tenant receives a subsidy, the owner-occupier receives considerable sums in income tax relief.
  Housing should not be a matter of ideology. We are discussing what is probably the most urgent, and, indeed, desperate, social problem in the country. The problem will not be solved by prejudice and by emotional reactions for or against this or that sector of housing. It will be solved only if we recognise that both the public and the private sectors have a crucial part to play in solving it, and both will need all the help and sympathy that we can give them.
  I turn to the second part of the Motion, which concerns rates. There are some things on which we can agree. We can all agree that rates are an unpopular tax. They are based on rateable values which frequently seem arbitrary to the ratepayer. Above all, they are an extremely regressive tax, and bear no relation to a person's means or capacity to pay. Hon. Members will recall the findings of the Allen Committee who
  1664
  took five income groups and found that the poorest group paid 8·2 per cent, of disposable income in rates, while those in the richest group paid only 2·2 per cent. There is no other tax in Britain which is more regressive.
  On the other hand, rates are easy to collect, difficult to evade, and bring in a great deal of money. No Government in practice will give up this source of revenue until and unless, as my hon. Friend is clearly hinting, there is some clear and practicable alternative local tax; and, pending the Government's Green Paper on local government finance, that for the moment does not exist.
  We are looking forward to the Green Paper. When we produced our White Paper on local government reorganisation the right hon. Gentleman was highly critical of us for producing it before the Green Paper on local government finance. This Government have had an extra year, and still have not produced the Green Paper.
  What the Labour Government did was to keep the rating system but take a number of important steps to make it less burdensome and less regressive. We allowed payment by instalments. We introduced the rent rebate scheme, under which more than 800,000 domestic ratepayers are receiving relief—80 per cent. of them, incidentally, old-age pensioners. Over the four years of the scheme, £52 million has been paid out in rate rebates.
  But we went much further in trying to protect the ratepayer, and especially the domestic ratepayer, against what otherwise would have been an intolerable burden of rising local expenditure. We increased by 1 per cent. a year the proportion of relevant local spending that was covered by the rate support grant. As a result, the proportion covered by the rate support grant rose in four years from 54 per cent, to 57 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in the proportion borne by local sources. Also, we concentrated the relief on the domestic ratepayer by means of the domestic rate element, which amounted to a subsidy rising by 5d. in the £ per year.
  In other words, we pursued a deliberate policy of putting more of the burden of local spending on national taxation, and less of it on the domestic ratepayer,

  1665
  and the policy was strikingly successful. During the four years of the scheme, the average domestic rate poundage went up by only 1 per cent. per year in the first two years, and 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively in the last two years.
  Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the last three years the Tories in Liverpool have boasted how they kept the rates down, but now that the previous policy has been abandoned by the Government rates in Liverpool are going up by 4s. in the £ this year, which is a good example of the point that he was making?
  Mr. Crosland: That is a very good example, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving it to the House. I shall add one or two other places by way of example to the one that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
  The Government have now changed the policy. The proportion of local spending to be matched by Government grant is to rise not by 1 per cent. a year but by only ½ per cent., and the domestic rate element is to go up not by 5d. a year but only 2.8d. and 2.4d. respectively this year and next. So the protection to the domestic ratepayer is to be halved, and the burden of local spending is to be shifted away from national taxation, which is broadly progressive, towards local rates, which are profoundly regressive.
  On top of that, just to drive the knife deeper into the wound, we have the so-called efficiency cut of £10 million this year, and £25 million next year. The best thing I can do is to quote the statement jointly put out by the local authority associations—Tory-controlled at the moment; things may look different soon—which said:
  "… it will be difficult for local authorities to bear this double cut in grant without a significant increase in the rates, or some curtailment in the planned development of services, or both."
  That seems to be the understatement of the year.
  What, then, is happening to rates this year, partly because of these deliberate cuts, and partly because of the inflation which the Government have so signally failed to control? I gave the figures a
  1666
  short time ago. They are taken from the figures given by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. The rise in the domestic rate poundage for the previous four years was 1 per cent., 1 per cent., 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. This year it is a whopping 12 per cent. If we take the total rate poundage, it is 14 per cent., the highest for a decade and a half, and a triumph for the policy of "cutting prices at a stroke".
  Let us consider individual places. Let us consider some of the London boroughs. We find the following increases: in Lewisham, 25 per cent.; Lambeth, 20 per cent.; Westminster, 20 per cent.; and Camden, 22 per cent. If we go outside London we find, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, a large increase in that city of 26 per cent.; in Manchester, 18½ per cent.; in Newcastle, 18½ per cent., and so on. Hardly what the voters were led to expect last June!
  We on these benches have always stood for excellence in local government.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: Rubbish.
  Mr. Crosland: We have never resisted the need for rate increases when they were designed to produce better services in housing, education, welfare and all the other services which local authorities provide. But this year's rate increase—and this is the difference—will not produce better services. On the contrary, most local authorities are desperately looking for ways of economising and reducing the scope and standard of their services. This year's increases are nothing to do with better services. They are the result partly of inflation and partly of a conscious decision by the Government to put a higher financial burden on the domestic ratepayer.
  I am not saying that there is no upper limit to the proportion of local spending that should be matched by Government grant. If the Green Paper proposes a fairer system of local taxation, the whole situation will look different. What I am saying is that this is not the time to impose this huge 14 per cent. increase in rates. After all, we must see this increase not in isolation but as part of the Government's total policy, including the even higher rise in council rents, higher social charges, the rise in food

  1667
  prices, and higher National Insurance contributions. It is a total policy which produces a continuous increase in the cost of living, which breaks all the promises the Tories made last June, and which, taken in combination with the income tax reliefs, continually shifts the burden from the better off to the less well off.
  There is nothing sensible that can be said about the Government's Amendment. It is almost wholly irrelevant to the Motion. In fact, I am surprised that it is even in order. It makes no mention of the increased cost of housing, or the increased burden on the ratepayer, to which our Motion refers. It refers to the huge bonanza which the Government are giving to land speculators by abolishing the betterment levy.
  Hon. Members: Will you bring it back?
  Mr. Crosland: It refers to the halving of S.E.T. without any mention of the value added tax—
  Mr. Cooper: Try to look sincere for a change.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: You should talk.
  Mr. Crosland: I recognise that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) is renowned for his integrity, but what right he has to accuse me of insincerity is not clear to me at all. Will he bloody well shut up.
  Mr. Cooper: Why does the right hon. Gentleman suppose we have abolished the Land Commission?
  Mr. Crosland: Out of Tory ideology and to give a lot of money back to their land speculator supporters.
  Also in the Motion there is a reference to the rate support grant, without even mentioning the fact that the rates are to go up by 14 per cent. There is a mention of house ownership and house improvement, where the Government are merely following policies initiated by the Labour Government.
  Finally, and impertinently, at the end there is a reference to people in need. It was not the people in need who were helped by the Budget. They are not the people who have been helped by the abolition of the betterment levy. There may be measures to help the very poorest of the poor, but if we take the less well-
  1668
  off half of the population as a whole, many of whom are certainly in need, they were not the big gainers from the Budget, but they are the ones who lose through Government policies on rents and on rates, as well as on social charges and on food prices.
  We read in the papers today that the Prime Minister, addressing the 1922 Committee yesterday, said, "We are winning the battle". The trouble is that he is not winning any battle for the nation. If he is winning a battle at all, he is winning it against a very large section of the nation. Fortunately for the nation, however, when he sees what next Thursday's local election results turn out to be he will find that he is not winning any battle of any kind.
  4.32 p.m.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, in line 1, leave out from "House" to end of the Question and add instead thereof
  'welcomes the abolition of the wasteful Land Commission and betterment levy, the halving of selective employment tax, which will help to curb the rise in the cost of housing, the increasing sale of council houses to tenants, and the substantial extra provision in the rate support grant for improvements to the environment; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the steps it is taking to extend home ownership and house improvement, and on its policy which is designed to concentrate support on areas of stress and people in need'.
  This is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address the House in a housing debate, but I crave no indulgence on that score. Indeed, after some experience of responsibility for defence, overseas affairs and advanced technology, it is rather exciting to return to the social problems which first aroused my interest in public life many years ago.
  But when I took on the job, I found the prospect rather daunting. Twenty-five years after the war, and after varying political administrations, 5 million of our people were still living in unfit homes, 12 million in homes lacking basic amenities and needing repair. There was a disquieting problem of homelessness. Many people were enjoying subsidised rents who did not need the subsidy, and others were paying rents which they could ill afford to pay.
  This picture, these facts, would have been less daunting if the trend of policy

  1669
  and of achievement had been going the right way. It had been going the wrong way. For some years now, the curve of the housing programme has been going down—and none will know it better than the Labour Party. They entered on their last term of office with the best intentions. They proclaimed a housing target of 500,000 new houses a year. In the last two years they barely achieved, in each year, 350,000—or the target which Mr. Macmillan struck in 1955, not long after the last controls had been lifted.
  The figures for the three years 1968–70 are very frightening. The private sector witnessed a decline of 23 per cent.—a catastrophic fall—and the public sector a decline of 5 per cent. The cost-rent societies were brought to a halt. The Housing Corporation's efforts to foster co-ownership were frustrated by limitations of expenditure. Private lettings continued to wither away. The story of the attempts to reach 500,000 houses and the result is a record of failure which has few parallels since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.
  But I would not have been concerned by the facts if the trend had not been so bad. It just will not do for the Labour Party to blame Conservative-controlled councils for the declining house-building programme which we have inherited. The programme declined mainly because of the economic difficulties and the loss of confidence created by the last Government. But I have been looking at the figures of periods when Conservatives were in the central seat and the Labour Party in local government.
  I am reminded of a story which used to be told by Lord Beaverbrook—
  Mr. Heffer: Oh, no.
  Mr. Amery: He used to say that when the Tory Party won the election it was despite the Daily Express and that when they lost the election it was because of the Daily Express. I found that, when the Socialist Party were in that maximum control of the great conurbations, the public sector figures were the worst ever, much worse than they have been in the last two years—
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Give us the figures for Manchester.
  Mr. Amery: In the last two years, when the Labour Party were in control of the centre and the Conservative Party in control of local government, the figures, although not good enough, were much better than they had been at the beginning of the decade.
  The point is underlined by the trend of starts in the private sector. The highest total was in 1964. By 1969 and 1970, this figure had declined from 247,000 to 167,000. In a gratuitous passage early on, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) talked about our high standards of unscrupulousness, and referred to the Zinoviev Letter. I am not prepared to take lessons in unscrupulousness from members of a Government which countenanced the gerrymandering of the constituencies.
  The right hon. Gentleman also implied that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should have been speaking in this debate—
  Mr. Kaufman: No, we can do without him.
  Mr. Amery: My researches show that, when he occupied a comparable position, the right hon. Gentleman intervened only once in our housing debates. I can understand it: he had good reason for keeping quiet. After all, in October, 1964, in his election address—
  Mr. John Grant: Get on with it.
  Mr. Amery: —he said:
  "We simply must build more houses and we must make housing cheaper."
  What happened? In 1964, the average price of a new house was £3,400. By 1970, it was £5,100–50 per cent. up. The recommended mortgage rate in 1964 was 6 per cent. and 1970 it was 8½ per cent. This means that a man taking out an 80 per cent mortgage for 25 years in 1964 would have paid £18 a month gross, and a man buying a similar house in 1970 would have had to pay £33 a month.
  The right hon. Gentleman, rightly—because it is consonant with the terms of the Motion—took us to task on the subject of rents. He is certainly in no position to stand in a white sheet on this matter. The Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants tells us that

  1671
  the average council rent on 31st March, 1964, was £1·35. By 31st March, 1970, it had risen to £2·20, 65 per cent. up. In his wildest moments in his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that our proposals might—I emphasise "might"—raise rents by 100 per cent. We know for certain that in his time they were raised by 65 per cent.
  To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made two attempts to control rent increases in the public sector. I am bound to tell him that most of the increases which were proposed by local authorities were approved and that only a very small number were rejected. The only effect of the controls which he and his colleagues imposed was to keep down rents for those who could afford to pay more and to give nothing to those in need.
  Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman is speaking of council house rents, and because it is important that the people of Manchester know this before next Thursday, will he confirm or deny a statement made by an official spokesman of Manchester City Council that the reorganisation of subsidies which he is proposing will add £1 per week to the average Manchester Corporation dwelling?
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. I will be coming to our reform of housing finance shortly, and perhaps he will await my comments then.
  I had to ask myself, in taking over this job, what had gone wrong with the policy of the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that price increases were blamed by the Conservatives on the trade unions. We have, of course, made it plain that we think that exaggerated wage claims contribute very much to inflation, but I assure him that we do not hold the trade unions primarily responsible for inflation. We blame the Labour Party.
  The Labour Party faced this problem with the best intentions. However, they produced a serious recession in the public and private sector, and inflation was, no doubt, an important reason why that recession occurred. There were high interest rates, increased costs and the
  1672
  curbs which they were forced to apply to loan sanction for housing in the public sector.
  There is, however, more than that to it. The truth is that the old policies which had served us well since the first war were breaking down. They no longer provided sufficient help for people in need or sufficient resources to tackle slum clearance and overcrowding. During the recessions which occurred when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, their leaders recognised this. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said in the White Paper of 1965:
  "… the whole question of housing finance policy needs much deeper study than this Government has yet had time to give to it."
  In 1965 that was fair enough, for hon. Gentlemen opposite had not been long in office. Four and a half years later thay had still done nothing to bring their study to a conclusion.
  It took us just four and a half months to grasp the nettle. The Opposition Chief Whip, who I regret is not in his place, made the most pregnant comment on the housing policy of the Labour Party when he said that the only thing to do with it was to stand it on its head.
  I come to our proposal for the reform of housing finance and to the right hon. Gentleman's principal questions. As hon. Members know, we are still discussing this with the local authority associations, and I cannot this afternoon dot the i's and cross the t's. However, I will do my best to help the House with the problem as it stands.
  Our first objective is to do justice between one type of householder and another. The rents of dwellings in England and Wales will be brought by stages to the fair rent, both for council and for rent-controlled tenants. The concept of the fair rent is fundamental to our thinking. It is the concept of the market rent but with the scarcity element discounted, which is particularly important to the great conurbations where the greatest housing stress exists.
  This was the innovation of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East, and I pay tribute to his ingenuity in devising it. We have certainly found a solid foundation on which to build and on which the Labour Party, if they should

  1673
  ever again be returned to power, would be glad to build.
  The right hon. Member for Grismby suggested that there was no logic in extending the fair rent concept to the public sector. He spoke, as hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes do, as if the public sector represented the majority of the country. It is, in fact, little more than one-quarter. Half our homes are privately owned. There are about five million council houses and I am not clear on what basis in logic it is suggested that they should be separated from the main stream, particularly as in many cases their going rent is already higher than rents in the private sector.
  Mr. Dick Leonard: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of separating council houses from the main stream. Although they make up only 30 per cent. of all households, their total represents a considerably larger number than privately rented accommodation. They should, therefore, be very much in the main stream, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to this.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that point, though I am not sure that it was worth my while giving way to enable him to make it. We should think of housing as a whole and remember that 50 per cent. of our people are already owner-occupiers.
  Mr. Heffer: We are not talking about owner-occupiers.
  Mr. Amery: I am talking about the lot and I am addressing my remarks to the Amendment as well as to the Motion.
  Our second objective is to ensure that housing subsidies from public funds go to those who need them—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to remember that many owner-occupiers are a great deal worse off than people living in council houses.
  As I was saying, we want to ensure that housing subsidies from public funds go to those who really need them. Those who cannot afford the fair rent will get a rebate or allowance. The Labour Party advised local authorities to give rebates, but we are making sure they do so—[Interruption.]and I am not afraid of the total bill, whatever it may be.
  1674
  The Labour Party introduced fair rents for certain categories of private tenant, but they made no provision to help those who could not afford the new rents. It was left to Birmingham to blaze the trail, and I pay tribute to Sir Francis Griffin who introduced allowances in the private sector for the first time in this country. We shall introduce allowances for all in need—
  Mr. Raphael Tuck Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford) rose—
  Mr. Amery: I must get on.
  This is a revolutionary step. This move to fair rents will be phased—
  Mr. Tuck Mr. Tuck rose—
  Mr. Amery—and every tenant affected by increases will be able from the start to obtain a rent rebate or allowance if he cannot afford the increased rent.
  Our third objective will be to concentrate subsidies from public funds on areas of stress and those with big problems of slum clearance and overcrowding. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were cutting the subsidies. This is quite untrue. The total help that will be paid out in subsidies in future will be at least as great as, and may be greater than, it is today. We shall be stopping the escalation of subsidies paid out indiscriminately, which would have taken place if we had continued with the previous policies.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that our policy was aimed at helping the better off. Surely nothing could be fairer than to stop taxation being raised, directly or indirectly, from those who can ill afford it for distribution to those who do not need it.
  In perhaps the most important passage of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman pressed me to say what would be the average increase in rents resulting from our proposals. He gave some curious figures and talked about 100 per cent. increases. I do not know how he worked out his sums. I should have thought that any right hon. Gentleman who was responsible, as he was, for the administration of fair rents, would have realised that the concept of an average is, in this context, entirely meaningless.
  Mr. Frank Allaun Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East) rose—
  Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer his right hon. Friend.
  In some parts of the country, existing rents are already very close to fair rents. In other parts the gap is wider. But this is not the whole story. The crux of the matter is not the rent of the dwelling but the rent paid by the tenant. The Labour Party are still obsessed with the idea that we should subsidise houses, not people. For our part, we shall ensure that every tenant who cannot afford the fair rent can obtain a rebate. When rents paid are going down, as some will be, as well as going up, as others will be, it does not make sense to talk about an average rent increase. Everything will depend upon the tenant's ability to pay the fair rent of the house which he occupies.
  Mr. Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House and the country a firm assurance this afternoon that vast numbers of both private landlords' tenants and council tenants will not have their rents more than doubled?
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I have been saying. I have said that it is quite impossible, in the context of fair rents, to talk about average increases more than doubling. If a man cannot afford to pay his rent, it cannot be more than doubled. He would benefit from the rebate.
  The right hon. Gentleman questioned our decision to let the power to control council house rent increases expire at the end of June.
  Mr. Kaufman Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Amery: He tried to make our flesh creep with the prospect, and said that he thought that wicked local authorities would take advantage of this interval to push up rents.
  Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A little time ago the right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give way to me on a question which I put to him, and he indicated then that he would reply to my question. Is it in order for him to pass from the subject without giving me the reply which he promised?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. May I take the opportunity of drawing hon. Members' attention to the fact that many hon. Members wish to speak and that it is in the interests of the House that their speeches be heard.
  Mr. Amery: As I said, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that wicked local authorities would take the opportunity to push up rents. The first concern of councils—and of many right hon. and hon. Members of the House—is to be re-elected. Nothing has impressed me more in my talks with local authorities than the vigour with which they defend their constituents' interests.
  So far I have been dealing with rents, but the Motion also deals with rates. The main problem here, spanning both rents and rates, is the inflation which the Labour Party bequeathed. About two-thirds of current local government expenditure now concerns wages and salaries. This means that ratepayers' expenditure is very sensitive to wage inflation, and it means, in turn, that even if the Government maintain their contribution through the rate support grant—and we have increased that contribution—ratepayers either have to find the money or to accept cuts. My hon. Friend will deal with all this in much greater detail and with more knowledge than I can command when he winds up the debate. He will also cover the other aspects of rating which the right hon. Gentleman raised.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that under the previous Administration, the contribution which ratepayers made to the cost of housing rose steadily. In 1963–64 it was £21 million for England and Wales. In 1969 it was about £60 million, nearly three times as much. In certain authorities, particularly in London, the contribution was equivalent to a rate of over 10p in the pound. In Oldham it rose to 17½,p in the pound. So much for the Opposition's concern for the domestic ratepayer.
  The reform of housing finance will not be on the Statute Book until next year. But, meanwhile, we have had to adopt first-aid measures. The abolition of the Land Commission and betterment levy was one of the first and most important. It

  1677
  is early days yet to say what this will lead to. But the upturn in private building suggests that this measure of decontrol has already made more land available for building. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would bring it back if he had the chance.
  The cuts in corporation tax, the halving of S.E.T., the better deal for close companies and the easing of restrictions on bank lending will all help to stabilise building costs, as the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and others concerned, including the unions, have been the first to recognise. Already, the January and February figures have shown a significant improvement. There is a marginal recovery in the public sector and a marked improvement in the private sector. The March figures are not yet available because of the postal strike—
  Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait. The March figures are not yet available, or have only just been received, because of the postal strike. I had hoped to be able to announce them during my speech; it is still possible that they will reach me in time. If not, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give them to the House before the debate is concluded.
  I have been very concerned over the last few months lest our discussions on the reform of housing finance, which have been detailed and protracted, should slow down public sector programmes. I am glad to say that my concern was wrong. The public sector is showing signs of recovery. I have recently announced an increased cost yardstick of between 7 per cent. and 12 per cent. This gives the go-ahead to the public sector programmes in the pipeline or under planning.
  Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last week Liverpool City Council announced that 4,100 projected public sector houses are to be abandoned? These houses, which are in the pipeline, will not be built, the argument being that in three or four years' time there will be a surplus of housing. Everybody in Liverpool knows that that argument is totally untrue. Also, there are 7,000 construction workers unemployed in Liverpool.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett: And have been unemployed for the last four years.
  Mr. Heffer: No, they have not. Under the Labour Government in 1968, the level was 4,000 unemployed and now it is 7,000. Is this not a clear indication that, as a result of Tory Government policy, there is slowing down of the public sector housing programme in Liverpool and that there are too many unemployed construction workers?
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman was lucky, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye for that intervention. I prefer to base myself on the official statistics, which show that for the first time for many a long month the public sector programme is on the recovery. It is up.
  I note that the Buchanan Report is rather critical of house improvement but I take a very different view. Many older houses, when modernised, are even better than those built to Parker Morris standards. I pay a tribute to Lord Greenwood for having initiated this reform. My criticism of the Labour Party would be that having put their hand to the plough, they looked back. Since we came to office we have done everything we can to give an impetus to the housing improvement programme. Since 18th June my right hon. Friend and I have taken part in 25 improvement month campaigns. I wonder in how many the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues took part. I do not know whether there was a house improvement campaign at Grimsby or at Small Heath. The other big task which must be settled is the slum clearance programme.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am delighted to talk about Small Health. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason we have improvement area campaigns is that the legislation was passed by the Labour Government? However, because we have a Conservative Government now, and despite petitions which have been raised and speeches made by myself, unfortunately we still have not succeeded in persuading the Conservative council in Birmingham to start a scheme in my constituency. That will soon be put right by coming events.
  Mr. Amery: I have just paid tribute to the decision of Lord Greenwood to

  1679
  launch this reform. I have inquired of Grimsby whether it is to have a house improvement month and I believe that it is to do so, but it does not appear to have done so yet. The other day I went to Birmingham on the occasion of its first improvement month.
  Mr. Howell: Not in Small Heath.
  Mr. Amery: It was in Birmingham. I do not know whether there was one in Small Heath [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman appears to be misleading the House. There does not appear to have been a campaign in his constituency. [Interruption.] I do not gather that there was a house improvement month in Small Heath. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts the criticism which I have ventured to make.
  A central feature of our policy has been the extension of home ownership. The Labour Party paid lip-service to this cause but did not do much about it. Indeed, hon. Members opposite often talked as if home owners were a minority. In fact they represent half the households of Britain—[Interruption.]—not only that, but under the whole evolution of Britain over 1,000 years.
  A vital decision in our effort to increase home ownership was our circular to local authorities and to new towns recommending the sale of council houses to sitting tenants. I am glad to say that this has met with an encouraging response.
  In this connection I salute the imaginative decision of Manchester City Council, under the leadership of Alderman Field-house, to offer council houses for sale on even more favourable terms than have previously been offered by any local authority.
  The 1965 White Paper announced the intention to extend building for owner-occupiers, but by July of the same year the Labour Government had begun to restrict mortgage lending by local authorities—the kind of mortgage lending which helps people who cannot easily obtain a mortgage from the major mortgage institutions. The Labour Government's decision was to restrict this lending to a level of £130 million a year. In 1968£69 they reduced this limit by stages. At one time it fell to £30 million, a miserable pittance—from which they had
  1680
  a deathbed repentance about 12 weeks before the General Election.
  In March of this year I announced our decision to remove the money ceiling on local authority lending, leaving only the requirement to concentrate such lending on certain categories of people, especially those unlikely to be able to secure building society mortgages.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to my talks with the building societies. I want to take this opportunity to report to the House about these talks with the Building Societies Association and the British Insurance Association.
  Our aim, as I have told the House, has been to bring home ownership within the reach of people who could not previously have contemplated it. The building societies are by far the most powerful agencies for the promotion of home ownership. They are at present in a stronger position than they have ever been. Their total assets at the end of March amounted to £11,119 million. Last year their gross lending was £1,986 million, or £400 million more than in 1969. They made 541,000 house-purchase advances, nearly 80,000 more than in 1969. Their commitments to new advances have risen from £424 million on 1st April, 1970, to £647 million on 1st April, 1971. These are record figures.
  It has been argued in many quarters that the building societies should take advantage of their existing strength to reduce their lending rates. Of course the Government would like to see the rate come down. I have discussed this with the leaders of the movement. They are well aware of the difficulties which high lending rates cause borrowers and they have assured me that they will take any opportunities they prudently can to reduce the charges they make to home buyers. They believe, however, that their first responsibility is to keep their savings inflow at a high level. In this I believe they are right. I want to see them increase the number of advances they can make and reduce the amount of deposit they require. From this point of view it is more important that they should have enough money to lend at present rates than that they should cut the rate and have to turn people away.
  My discussions with them have, therefore, been concentrated on the steps that

  1681
  could be taken to reduce the amount of deposit which a would-be home buyer has to put down to get a mortgage. There are many people—professional people, skilled workers and others—who can afford to meet mortgage charges out of their salaries or wages but who lack the capital to put down a deposit.
  As the House knows, the building societies have always given special consideration to applications for mortgages from people who have demonstrated their capacity to save or from people who, from experience of previous mortgage transactions, have demonstrated their ability to keep up repayments—that is, from reliable savers and reliable payers.
  I am delighted to be able to inform the House that the leaders of the movement will now advise their members that if a man saves regularly with them for a period even as short as six months and at a rate equivalent to his future monthly repayments, he should be favourably considered for an advance. I welcome this. It means that, provided that funds continue to be available, six months' savings could secure a mortgage without further deposit.
  I have also discussed with the Building Societies Association the question of making mortgage advances more easily available to older people. There is a widespread view that people in middle age have little chance of getting a building society advance. The figures show that in 1970 nearly 10 per cent. of building society advances were made to first-time buyers aged 45 or over and nearly 22 per cent. to people aged 45 or over moving from one owner-occupied house to another.
  The association has now undertaken to remind its members of two things—first, that a mortgage advance should not be limited by the age of the borrower but only by his capacity to meet the repayment and the value of the property he offers as security; second, that, in assessing his capacity to meet repayments, societies should be prepared to take into account any guarantee that might be offered—for example, by younger members of his family.
  Where a mortgage advance exceeds, say, 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the valuation of a property, it has been
  1682
  common practice for building societies to require the margin—the balance between the 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. or whatever the figure may be and 100 per cent.—to be covered by a policy of mortgage indemnity assurance. This is an insurance policy paid for by a lump sum premium. The premium rate charged by the insurance companies participating in this arrangement varies from 2½ per cent. to 4 per cent. of the amount guaranteed. The building societies are normally prepared to allow the amount of the premium to be added to the advance secured on the house.
  I am discussing premium rates with the insurance industry, and a number of companies have already indicated, as a result of these discussions, their intention to reduce the premium rate by ½ per cent. This means that the cost of insurance to the mortgagor will be reduced by up to one-fifth, depending on the size and duration of the mortgage advance.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: On the question of building societies being prepared to give favourable consideration to those who have saved regularly for six months, the total saved substituting for a deposit, do we gather that the monthly savings will have to equate to whatever the borrower will have to pay in monthly repayments? Could the right hon. Gentleman spell this out in a little more detail, and tell us precisely the total to which the six months' savings relate?
  Mr. Amery: They would be equivalent to the monthly repayments which a barrower would have to pay. They will vary, depending on the type of house in which he is interested.
  I should like to say something now about the option mortgage scheme. We promised before the General Election to make it more flexible. I propose to do this in two ways.
  When the scheme was introduced by the Labour Party in 1967 the choice between option mortgage subsidy and tax relief was irrevocable except in compassionate cases. A house owner who had once chosen option mortgage terms could not switch out of the scheme. In 1969 Lord Greenwood, strongly encouraged, I may say, by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, made it

  1683
  possible for people who had chosen option mortage terms to switch back to tax relief after five years.
  I am not satisfied that this is enough. I accordingly propose to reduce the period to four years. This will require legislation to amend Section 79 of the Housing Act, 1969; and provision for this will be made by Government Amendment to the Finance Bill. This will mean that, subject to the consent of the House, people who want to switch will be able to get out of the scheme by 1st April, 1972, instead of 1st April, 1973.
  The second change relates to the guarantee which the Secretary of State is empowered to make in favour of option mortgagors who need a mortgage advance of up to 100 per cent. of valuation. Under an administrative decision of the previous Government, this guarantee has been limited to cases in which the purchase price of a property was £5,000 or less. I think this price too low and am raising it to £7,500. This will not require legislation.
  I should like to pay tribute to the Building Societies Association and the British Insurance Association for the constructive way in which they have approached these problems.
  I believe that the new arrangements I have just described, coupled with the easing of the previous Government's restrictions on local authority lending, will give a powerful impetus to the extension of home ownership. There are already encouraging signs of a revival of house building in both the public and the private sector. The March figures have been delayed because of the postal strike, and we still have not got the March figures for improvement grants.
  The housing figures, however, have just reached me. They show that in the quarter January to March as a whole public sector starts are up by 3 per cent. compared with last year and private sector starts are up by 37½ per cent., giving a total increase of 20½ per cent. The March figures are even more dramatic. They show that the public sector is up by 31 per cent. compared with March last year and the private sector is up by 56 per cent., the overall increase being 28½ per cent. I think that these figures will receive a widespread welcome on both sides of the House. [HON.
  1684
  MEMBERS: "What about completions?"]—The completions are not so good, because they were started under the previous Government. Completions in the public sector were 3 per cent. down in the quarter, and in the private sector they were 9 per cent. up.
  It would, of course, be wrong to put too much weight on one quarter's figures, though I am glad to see that the N.F.B.T.E.'s latest state of trade inquiry shows that building contractors have more orders on their books than they have had for several months.
  All this suggests that our new initiatives are meeting with a new response from the public and from the construction industry. Buying your own house is becoming the "in" thing. And I do not doubt that the builders will meet this challenge with renewed confidence.
  The Labour Party used to pride themselves upon being the radical, even the revolutionary party. But in the field of housing the right hon. Gentleman and most of his hon. Friends are defending the falling bastions of the past and advocating policies which are now outworn. New times call for new tunes. We are the radicals now; it is the Conservative Government who have taken up the slogan,
  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
  We welcome this debate. We all know that the Labour Party have chosen it with an eye on the local elections. I make no complaint of that. If they choose to use the House of Commons as a forum from which to appeal to the municipal electorate, let them try. Housing is not a issue on which either the Attlee or the Wilson Government won many votes. In any case, these issues should not be treated as a political football.
  In his last speech on housing in January of last year, the right hon. Gentleman taunted us with the sudden discovery of the virtue of compassion. Today he attacked our sincerity. There is no monopoly of compassion or sincerity in this House. I am sure that we all have the right intentions. The question is our ability to achieve.
  I welcome a debate on these great issues. But let us put a clear alternative to the country. We know where we are

  1685
  going, and we have put our cards on the table. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing of what his party would have done if they had won the election, or if ever they were to win another. His hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was at the hub of things in the housing world right up to the election. He can tell us when he winds up the debate what a Labour Government would have done had they been returned to power. Let him take full advantage of the opportunity. We all look forward to hearing him.
  It is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman to content himself with seeking in speeches, and the kind of leaflets his party is putting out for the local elections to raise the bogey of dear rents. Our duty is to enlighten the people on what is a great social issue. Let us scorn to exploit their fears.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: In supporting the Motion I want to concentrate on what little we know about the Government's policy on council house rents.
  I listened with close attention to the Minister's speech. He said that this was the first occasion he has spoken in the House in a housing debate. I listened particularly during his 25 minutes of debating points on council house rents for the serious points, but only two points came through clearly—the Government's intention to do justice between one type of householder and another and their intention to introduce the concept of market price, less scarcity factor, in council housing. Those two objectives are mutually contradictory. The policies proposed by the Government on council house rents are wholly misconceived in logic, in equity and in economic and social terms.
  There is obviously a logical attraction in the idea that local authority tenants should not be in a specially favoured situation, protected from the rigours of a housing market which everyone else must bear, but that is certainly not the case. I shall seek to demonstrate that tenants in the private sector, who are to be the pattern for council tenants in future, are paying anomalously high prices for their housing, and if we put
  1686
  council house tenants on the same basis we are exaggerating and aggravating an anomaly rather than ending one.
  Two separate factors are involved here. First, there are housing subsidies, and, secondly, there is the question of the relationship, if any, that rents should have to any given level of cost in producing a house, and determining what the cost of occupying it should be. The point that the Minister wholly failed to make clear is that both owner-occupiers and council tenants enjoy a general housing subsidy.
  For the owner-occupier it takes the form of tax relief on mortgage interest. In the last complete year the cost was £213 million. The council house tenants receive a subsidy in the form of lower interest rates on the loans to local authorities enabling them to build. In the last complete year the costs for the 30 per cent. who occupy council houses was £163 million, which is roughly proportional.
  It is only the 20 per cent. of all households in the private sector who get no subsidy at all. It is that pattern of the unsubsidised private sector which would, if the Government's proposals are implemented, be the pattern for the council house sector, too. We say that there will then literally be two nations, the subsidised private owner-occupier and all the others who are wholly unsubsidised.
  True, the Government are proposing more assistance to needy tenants of unfurnished private accommodation, but leaving aside the tenants in greatest need, those in furnished accommodation who will get no benefit. It is clear from the fact that the Government has announced that it is proposing to cut expenditure on housing subsidies generally by £100 million to £200 million by 1974–75, that the assistance that private tenants are likely to get will not be substantial.
  It is not only in the lack of a subsidy that the one household out of five which rents a home in the private sector is at a disadvantage, which if the Government's proposals are implemented, could be transferred to council tenants. The cost of housing to owner-occupiers, and to the vast majority of council tenants, is related to the actual cost of providing the house; in the council house sector, this cost is pooled between all council tenants of a particular authority. In the private

  1687
  sector the question of cost is a far less relevant factor; it is a question of the profit that can be made in a classically profitable situation.
  With regulated tenants, fair rents are assessed by the rent officer on a basis which the Francis Committee describes as arbitration between the demands of the landlord and the demands of the tenant. The demands of the landlord are, naturally, based on the very minute furnished sector which is the only sector that is completely uncontrolled, a sector representing approximately 2 per cent. of the entire housing market. It is in that tiny uncontrolled sector, that the pattern of private landlords' expectations with regard to rents are determined. From that sector rents throughout the entire private sector are determined to a greater or less extent.
  It is now proposed that from this minute and unrepresentative sector the rents of the entire 50 per cent. who will occupy rented accommodation should be determined. That is a complete absurdity.
  That is not the only aspect, the owner-occupier buying a £4,000 house and successful in getting a 100 per cent. mortgage at 8½ per cent., pays a total of £294 per annum in capital and interest payments, after taking account of the tax relief on the interest. The private landlord seeking to provide the same house, if he were lucky enough to get a mortgage on the same terms, which is unlikely, would get no tax relief on his mortgage interest payments nor on his spending on repairs, yet he will pay tax on the rent he receives.
  As a result the private landlord would have to charge £500 per annum to the private tenant just to cover his costs, whereas the owner-occupier could get that house for £294 per annum. It is this factor, this discrimination in taxation—not the Rent Act—which is driving out the private landlords. I do not believe it is desirable that we should have a substantial privately-rented sector because I believe that the relationship of the private landlord to the private tenant is in general a socially unhealthy one: but while we do have a private sector it is right that the private landlord should not be compelled by our taxation system to charge a level of rent nearly double the
  1688
  cost which the owner-occupier has to pay for the same accommodation.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman referred a moment ago to the undesirable nature of subsidising owner-occupiers. Would he not agree that this is the result of policies pursued by all Governments who have encouraged people to embark on the somewhat arduous undertaking of home ownership?
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: If I have not made myself clear I apologise, but I hope I have been clear to hon. Members. I do not object to the subsidising of owner-occupiers. I think it would be quite impractical to abolish the subsidy to owner-occupiers who form 50 per cent. of all households. I suggest that it is completely anomalous and absurd to subsidise that one sector, which benefits in a great number of other ways, and not continue the general housing subsidy, quite apart fro mthe subsidy for slum clearance and high cost, to council tenants.
  What we should be doing is extending the subsidy to private tenants, too. The owner-occupier has a great many other advantages apart from the subsidy. A substantial part of the £294 which he pays is capital repayment, genuine savings. The owner-occupier has a property which increases in value from year to year, but council and private tenants only have their rents increasing without any capital gain from the property. The annual cost to the owner-occupier remains constant. These are substantial advantages of owner-occupation. Neither I nor my party is opposed to owner-occupation but we are in favour of justice between different groups of households.
  It is absurd for the Government to be protesting their intention of doing justice as between one group of householders and another and yet leave the subsidy benefits for the 50 per cent. of householders who occupy their own homes but take away the subsidy for council housing which we need to tackle the housing problems. The Minister has described these problems: neither in justice nor on social grounds should we be taking away the general subsidy to council house tenants. We should be extending the subsidies to private tenants instead.
  The Minister disputed the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Member for

  1689
  Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that council house rents are likely to rise to approximately double their present rate if the Government's policy is put into effect. The Minister gave no figures in his reply but I have some figures. It may be that the Minister has more recent figures than mine. The figures for council house rents for 1968–69 show an average of 1·1 times gross annual value, which is remarkably consistent throughout the country. We also have the average for fair rents which have been determined and these are something over 1½ times gross rateable value. These averages are substantially reduced by the fact that many properties are in poor repair.
  With the exception of a few areas like Kensington and Chelsea, in general council properties are in reasonably good repair, and there can be no doubt that the fair rents which are likely to be assessed by rent officers for the majority of council properties will be at least double the gross value, with the result that, if we charge market rents, for all the absurdity of doing so, even disallowing the scarcity factor, the rents charged will involve an approximate doubling of council rents on average throughout the country. It is clear that the Government are contemplating approximately that.
  The Government have said that Scotland will not be required to move immediately to a fair rent system, but will be required to balance its housing revenue accounts. In England and Wales we shall be moving to the fair rent system. This implies that the Government contemplate that the fair rent system will produce something greater than a balancing of housing revenue accounts, and that we shall be producing surpluses for housing revenue accounts.
  If our estimate of a doubling of council house unrebated rents is correct, we shall be collecting, through housing revenue accounts, about £400 million a year more from council tenants and thereby transforming the present situation, in which council tenants get a subsidy approximately proportionate to the subsidy received by owner-occupiers, into one in which council tenants are making a profit for local authorities of about £200 million a year, and effectively raising the money to pay subsidies to owner-occu-
  1690
  piers. How can that be described as justice between one section of the community and another?
  The Government take pride in their programme of selling off council houses. This can do nothing to improve the basic housing situation. It reduces the supply for the most deprived who are the homeless and tenants in the private sector, and in the majority of cases—and this is a point which the Government have been careful to ignore—it more than doubles the cost to the Exchequer of the subsidy received. The average cost of council house subsidies throughout the country as a whole is £26 per house. The average cost of subsidy in the form of tax relief to owner-occupiers buying their houses is approximately £60 a year on a £3,000 house.
  Without being against owner-occupiers, I hope that hon. Members will accept the view put forward by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, already referred to by both previous speakers, that owner-occupiers, private tenants and local authority tenants in the same financial position should be able to enjoy the same standard of housing for similar costs, bearing in mind the investment aspect of owner-occupation. That is a reasonable viewpoint which is wholly ignored by the Government's policy as announced.
  I urge the Government to reconsider their intention to put this load on to council tenants. There is certainly a need for rebates in case of need, and no doubt the Government have in mind that they should be paid, but these are the responsibility of the entire community and not the responsibility merely of other council tenants. What the Government are proposing means that a surplus of £200 million will be accumulated on housing revenue accounts throughout the country and that surplus will be used to finance rebates to private tenants. This is a clear case of social discrimination, of taxing the council tenants for the benefit of owner-occupiers, which is not only unjust, illogical and inflationary but socially divisive. I support the Motion.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I was interested to hear the speech of

  1691
  the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) but I was sorry to hear him talking in terms of the divisive nature of the Government's policy to the extent that he considers a private tenant to be different in community terms from the council house tenant. He seemed to think that we should not try to help the needy rented tenant in the private sector at the expense of the council tenant who is receiving a rent rebate which is unjustified in terms of his income. If ever there was a divisive approach to housing, it is that which the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
  We must look at the problem as a whole and see that everyone in the community who needs help, whether in council accommodation or in private rented accommodation, gets help. The hon. Gentleman's remarks in advocating that we should not interfere with the existing arrangements for subsidising council tenants were of a divisive nature, and were not a sound contribution to housing policy.
  In the whole post-war period our housing policy has been unsuccessful. First, we have not provided the numbers of houses needed to house our community satisfactorily. We have not made anything like the progress with slum clearance that we should have made. We have not improved living conditions, which are far below standard in many parts of the country. Our record is poor in comparison with that of our countries in Europe, especially Germany.
  This follows from our not having ensured adequate resources for housing over the whole post-war period. We have not put into housing the resources in capital and in rent terms that we need to produce a successful housing policy, although annual allowances by way of subsidies and tax rebates amount to about £600 million a year. In addition, we have not ensured that the resources that are available have gone to the right people.
  The hon. Member for Kensington, North said that many council tenants enjoyed a housing subsidy which could not be justified in terms of need. This is fundamental to the policy of the Government. We have reached this situation because rents in the public sector have been unrealistic. The policy of the previous Government was to keep council
  1692
  house rents as low as possible. That is nonsense in view of the requirement for putting additional resources into housing.
  I pay tribute, as my right hon. Friend has done, to the conception of the fair rent arrangements. We need to establish a fair rent arrangement in the private sector and in the public sector so that additional resources are made available. For nearly half a century there has been control of private sector rents which has denied to the owners of private tenanted property the resources for keeping that property in good order.
  I disagree strongly with the comment of the hon. Member for Kensington, North that the relationship between owner and tenant in the private sector is socially unhealthy. That statement cannot be justified except as political ideology.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I hope the hon. Member has had the opportunity of looking at the Milner-Holland Report, the Greve Report and the Francis Committee's Report, which set out the abuses between landlords and tenants which are the inevitable result of the landlord/ tenant relationship. It is that relationship about which I was talking. I am sure the hon. Member will consider whether he or other hon. Members have any social need for the subsidies we receive as owner-occupiers and mortgagees.
  Mr. Jones: I am talking about not the owner-occupier but the specific point of the relationship between owner and tenant in the private sector. Of course there are certain undesirable practices, but to go from that specific point to the generalisation that it is socially unhealthy is a very long step, and the hon. Gentleman would be open to general criticism if he took it. He would be wise to withdraw from that view of housing.
  The Labour Government—and the fault lies partly also with the previous Conservative Government—depressed artificially below the market values rents in both the public and the private sectors. The effect of this has been that in family budgets the essential requirement to provide a roof over one's head has not received the priority justified. The fact that one was getting a roof over one's head for a figure substantially less than could be justified in sound economic and

  1693
  social terms led, I believe, to a mis-assessment of family budget priorities.
  What I wish to see is, as far as may be, a loosening of the general controls right across the range of housing. I want to see—and I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend made no reference to it—a far more selective basis for housing. I want to see the utmost made of the needs in various parts of the country, both in the public and the private sectors. I want to see this linked to the necessity for slum clearance in our great cities because for many years I have been critical of the circumstances in which about 1,200 housing authorities in England and Wales have been encouraged to build council houses whether there was need or not and, indeed, the tendency for such building to become almost a status symbol among them in seeing which of them could build the most houses in comparison with similar local authorities.
  What we need is a selective policy in housing provision, and where the needs are greatest is where the largest number of houses should be built. The fair rent policy has the singular advantage that with rents left to the rent officers to determine, we shall have not a general level of rents right across the country regardless of local circumstances and the level of local earnings, but fair rents reflecting, I hope and believe, local circumstances and earnings. This is essential in terms of a sound level of rent commensurate with local circumstances.
  Artificial rent levels have essentially led to an insufficiency of investment of both public funds and private funds in housing. We should be directing our policies towards some method of encouraging the immense sums available in pension and life assurance funds to be put into housing, with some form of assurance that the equity content will not be the plaything of politics. I would like to see the trade unions shown the courage of their convictions and invest in housing to rent. If they get involved in a high level of strike payments, then of course they will find it difficult to do so, but many trade unions have substantial funds. Trade unions in many other countries provide houses to rent by their members, and that is an example which could well be followed by our trade unions.
  It is unfortunate that the Opposition still maintain their political objection to
  1694
  private rented accommodation. This is what bedevils the opportunity to get substantial capital investment into housing. Such investment tends to go instead into commercial and industrial developments whereas we need an encouragement, on the basis of a fair and reasonable return, to investors to put funds into housing.
  What we need now is the speedy implementation of the Government's policies following the legislation that we are promised for next Session. I hope that that will bring about a move towards a recognition of general market conditions in housing and the level of values which, sensibly, should be put on housing accommodation in both the public and the private sectors, with the ability to offer rent rebates to both classes of tenant, which is essentially a simply operation. It is not a worthwhile inquiry to see where the level of regulated rents will take us, because, as my right hon. Friend said, there is an infinite variety of place and circumstance throughout England and Wales. We need an arrangement which will reflect these differences and variations. I support what my right hon. Friend said and I am confident that when those policies are followed we shall see a complete transformation of the housing scene in the United Kingdom.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) said that Britain had a very poor housing record compared with some other European countries. That is one part—perhaps the only part—of his speech with which I strongly agree. His main theme was that rents have been too low. That is what he said. The Conservative Government believe that the solution to the housing problem can be summed up in two words: higher rents. It cannot. The solution, elementary as it may seem, is to build more houses.
  The Tories are the high rent party. Their leaders are out to soak the tenants. There is to be a deliberate increase in rents, a major item in the budgets of most working class families. I challenge the Minister for Local Government and Development to deny that the Government's policy will result in at least doubling rents for great numbers of tenants, both council tenants and private

  1695
  landlords' tenants. The Minister for Housing and Construction did not do so when I asked him if he would make such a denial a few minutes ago.
  The council tenants will have their rents increased because of the removal of the subsidy, and the private tenants will have their rents increased by the Government taking even the worst slum houses out of their present control. From my experience in some of our great cities, I believe that instead of the tenants paying the landlords, the landlords ought to pay the tenants if they have to live in some of these houses. These houses will now be taken out of rent control. This means increasing private rents on average by two-and-a-half times as is shown by the Ministry figures; the exact figure is 2·6 times. I warn the Minister that if he goes ahead with this proposal there will be civil disturbances on some council estates.
  The Cabinet is keeping its housing plans dark. I suspect that it is because the Government want to get the municipal elections over first. The Government first consulted Conservative councillors way back in January, four months ago; yet no official announcement has been made. However, the unpleasant shape of things to come has already been made clear from answers which we have managed to extract from Ministers. We gather that council rents are to be fixed by the so-called fair rents system. In many cases this will mean a trebling of rent. The Government will remove £150 million a year compared with what the subsidy would have been in 1973–74—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Or more.
  Mr. Allaun: Or more, as my hon. Friend says. It should be stressed that this is not just a redistribution, but a reduction, of subsidy. If the Government were arguing that some should have a little more and some a little less, there might be a case; but that is not what is to happen. There is to be a net reduction of subsidy. There will be an additional reduction because the Ministers have announced their intention to pay a subsidy to private tenants. This will come out of the total subsidy for municipal tenants.
  What may not yet have been realised is that it will put many councils and
  1696
  their tenants in an impossible financial position.
  The Labour Government granted building loans at an effective rate of 4 per cent., making up to the councils the difference between that rate and the far higher market rate of borrowing, which, at present, is about 9½ per cent. The cheaper rate was to have been paid for the whole term of the loan, usually 60 years. Without these 4 per cent. loans, council housing would have stopped altogether. We gather that the present Government are to end this commitment, even on loans already entered into in good faith. They will break this solemn undertaking.
  I asked the Minister for Housing and Construction a specific Question about this matter on 10th March. He replied:
  "It is indiscriminate in its application and needs to be entirely recast along with other existing subsidies."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 10th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 395.]
  The Minister was saying that even existing loans would be interfered with. I maintain that that is a serious breach of honesty, and that is how it will be regarded by many local authorities. Hundreds of thousands of council houses and flats have been built in the past four years on the firm understanding that the councils will not have to pay more than 4 per cent. If that undertaking is now broken by the Government, it will put local authority finances "in the red" in many areas, forcing tenants to bear the deficits.
  As regards private landlords' tenants whose rents will be raised on average two-an-a-half times even for those without bath, hot water and inside lavatory, some are to receive a rebate, but they will be a minority. If the experience in Birmingham is any indication—and I have had this information from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), who has more knowledge of that area than I have—a kind of pilot scheme has been carried out there and I understand that only 1,200 tenants in Birmingham will qualify for a rebate.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I was proposing to put this matter to the Minister in an interruption, but he was not prepared to do me the courtesy of giving way. In fact, some 250 out of an estimated 60,000 private tenants are today receiving rebate.
  Mr. Allaun: That makes the argument even stronger. Only an infinitely small minority on that basis will receive rebate.
  Mr. Skinner: Sixpence a week.
  Mr. Allaun: In most cases the rebate granted will be far smaller than the increases which the Government are to impose. Many people will lose out. Their rents will be vastly increased, with no rebate at all.
  I am in favour of owner-occupation, which, along with council housing, is rapidly replacing private landlordism, but owner-occupation must be voluntary. The Government will raise rents so high—both council and private rents—that tenants will be forced against their will to buy houses which they cannot really afford.
  I recently introduced a Bill to encourage owner-occupation. The Bill would permit tenants, at the point where they are taken out of their present rent control, to buy the houses from their landlords at a reasonable rent. The Government have blocked that Bill. On two occasions in the House the Government Whip has quietly said, "Object." In fact, he did it so surreptitiously that Mr. Speaker had to tell him to speak up. Therefore, that Bill has no chance of becoming law under this Government.
  Mr. Silverman: Shame!
  Mr. Allaun: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are supposed to be upholders of owner-occupation. I said earlier that the solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, but the number of houses has fallen, particularly in the council house sector. Most working people are dependent on council housing since they cannot afford to buy their own homes, even on mortgage. In May, 1967, four years ago, 95 per cent, of the town halls fell under Tory rule. Since then, because of ideological reasons and because Conservative councillors have had no great enthusiasm for council houses, the number has dropped calamitously. For every four council houses started in 1967, fewer than three were started last year. The number fell from 214,000 in 1967 to 154,000 last year. This year the number will fall still further.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction told us a short time ago that
  1698
  the number of housing starts, both council and private, in the first three months of this year had risen by 20 per cent., and there were cheers from the Opposition benches. The Minister knows very well that January, February and March of this year were exceptionally warm, without the fall in building figures which normally take place in that period of the year. I am not, of course, blaming the Government for the good weather. I am saying that it is unfair to take a temporary increase in the number of starts—which amounted to 2½ per cent. in the council sector—as a good indication of the situation. Everybody in the Chamber knows that this has been an exceptionally warm winter in which the frosts which normally stop housing activity in those months did not this year occur.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: If I recollect aright, the increase in private sector building was of the order of 50 per cent. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that in normal winter months house-building figures slump by 33⅓ per cent. The figures do not bear out any such assertion.
  Mr. Allaun: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the monthly figures, they will confirm that there is normally a heavy drop in starts in those three months. If that is not enough for him, in the House we have at least one expert builder on the benches opposite and one building worker who sits on this side who will confirm what I say. In any event, we shall see at the end of the year.
  Mr. Silverman: At any rate, we have not been told by the Minister what the figures are. We have been given only percentages.
  Mr. Allaun: That is true. However, I do not think the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) will challenge the long-term figures that I have given of the reduction from 214,000 in 1967 to 154,000 last year.
  The serious fall which has taken place has occurred despite the generously subsidised 4 per cent. loans provided by the Government. They now intend to reduce these drastically. From this May onwards we shall have more and more Labour-controlled councils, but their subsidies will have been largely removed. So, however much they may wish to

  1699
  restore the housing programmes, they will be forced to axe them and increase rents, unless the Government can be prevented from withdrawing the subsidy.
  Last Saturday, May Day, in one city I saw a contingent of council tenants taking part in the march. One mother carried a home-made poster saying,
  "Hands off the housing subsidies."
  She was right on the ball. I should like to have seen a second slogan as well:
  "Hands off the rent controls."
  I referred earlier to the fall in house building. What an indictment it is of the Government that at a time of desperate housing shortage we have the record figure of 129,000 men in the building trade out of work, the highest total since the 1930s. Building firms are crashing in large numbers, mainly because the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to allow banks to put loans to building firms in their priority lending lists.
  The "Little Neddy" for the Building Industry says that the outlook for the building industry in the next 10 years is "virtually static". It goes on to say that council house building will be reduced. Far from cutting down housing programmes, we need to increase them. This week Professor Buchanan and his partner have produced "The Prospect for Housing", published by the Nationwide Building Society. It is a valuable piece of work. It estimates the need for a programme of 500,000 new houses and flats a year if we are to get on top of the problem.
  I criticise the former Labour Government for failing to carry out that badly needed programme. At least, however, they had the excuse of the terrible deficit on the balance of payments. That cannot be used as an argument by the present Government. But, irrespective of politics, it is the duty of Parliament to see that that 500,000 a year target programme is reached. So far we have not even a programme, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will commit themselves to a large programme of that type. It can be done by devoting more of the country's resources to houses. That is the inescapable truth.
  Britain's share of the gross national product devoted to housing is 3·7 per
  1700
  cent. That compares badly with the average in Western Europe, which is 1½ times greater. In my view, the share going to Britain could be enlarged by slashing our fantastic arms spending, which went up this year by no less than £266 million to the record total of £2,540 million. If we reduced our arms spending from 5½ per cent. of the gross national product to the 3 per cent. to which France is cutting by 1975, we should save the little sum of £950 million a year. If that were all devoted to housing, it would build an extra 220,000 houses a year.
  If we do not achieve the half million houses a year, then, as Professor Buchanan says, many families will have to stay in rooms, shared houses and degrading homes for decades. Some of us come from constituencies where we see too much of that. While I think there is a political evil in what the Government are doing, it behoves both sides of the House to see that they do far more than they have in the past to end the housing shortage.
  The second area to which I want to devote a few remarks is motorway building. We have the most powerful pressure group in Parliament in the shape of the British Road Federation. It combines the concrete monopoly, the petrol giants and the great construction firms in a formidable lobby. But not only are we spending several thousand millions of £s on these roads at more than £1 million a mile; we are also chopping up our towns and cities and forcing the demolition of thousands of houses. I believe that the figures are 60,000 houses in London and 2,900 in the comparatively small city of Salford. These are houses that we can ill-afford to lose.
  Then I refer to the mention in the Amendment of the abolition of the Land Commission. This does not help the homeless. It will give the big land owners £31 million a year extra. According to the Department of the Environment study, the cost of land in London doubled between 1963 and 1970, so that an average three-bedroom house in London now costs £2,500 for the land alone and an average council flat £1,600 for the land alone, before a single brick is laid. That represents 30s. a week on the rent just to pay for the land.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman attribute that state of affairs to the activities of the Land Commission.
  Mr. Allaun: I am coming to that. The Land Commission is being removed, but what will the Government put in its place? The answer is "Nothing". That means that increases in the price of land are bound to take place without let or hindrance. When we return to office, we shall need to have either the replacement of the Land Commission or some form of public ownership in land so that when the value of land increases not through the efforts of its owner but through the efforts of the community that increase goes back to the community which created it.
  Mr. Jones: But the Land Commission had no control over the value of land. It made a levy on land. Surely that tended to put up the cost of land. That is the effect that the Land Commission had. Although that may not have been the intention, it was the direct result of the Land Commission's activities which brought the increased price of land into being.
  Mr. Denis Howell Mr. Denis Howell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention. There are many hon. Members who are hoping to speak.
  Mr. Allaun: I intend to bring my remarks to a close very shortly. However, I have been asked several questions, and I do not like dodging them.
  The answer to the question which has just been put to me is that people selling land go for the maximum price. They go for and get the full market price in any case. If some of that price is taken away from them, it goes back to the community. They cannot obtain more than the market price.
  Mr. Howell: Whilst it is true that the price of a house is decided by the market value in conditions of scarcity, if the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) is right that the Land Commission forced up the price of land, the inescapable logic of that argument must be that the abolition of the Land Commission will bring down prices. We have seen no evidence to support that.
  Mr. Allaun: No one on either side of the House is daft enough to believe that the price of land will come down—certainly not without control.
  I welcome the small improvement in the option mortgage scheme. I should like to see a considerable extension. The 2½ per cent. advantage given to the low-paid worker to bring him up to the income tax payer's benefit should be increased to, say, 5 per cent. and extended to a much wider range of the population.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. William Shelton: It is a great pleasure for me to intervene in the debate. I am an Inner London Member, and rents and rates are obviously of great concern to both my constituents and myself.
  The one note struck by right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far has been of concern. I do not think that anyone in this House is complacent, satisfied or happy about housing, rents, or rates in our great conurbations. Any hon. Member who has taken an advice bureau or canvassed and talked to constituents will be aware of the great social problems caused by bad housing. I firmly believe that many social problems—delinquency, broken homes and truancy—spring from the poor quality of housing in many of our great cities. Whatever Government can solve this problem over the next generation will have done something great for the country.
  It is not only a problem in this country. Anyone who has visited the United States will be aware of what they call the "city centre decay". It is far worse than in this country and should be a warning to us.
  I had the pleasure of meeting an Australian Member of Parliament a few weeks ago. I asked him: "What is the principal problem which your constituents bring to you?". He replied: "Housing." So it is a great problem in other parts of the world.
  I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) about the cost of land. I cannot agree with his remarks about the Land Commission. However, the cost of land is a great problem.
  In the Borough of Lambeth, part of which I have the privilege to represent,

  1703
  an acre of land costs £90,000. To that has to be added about £60,000 for clearing it. Therefore, it costs about £150,000 for an acre of land which may take 65 families. I make the same calculation as the hon. Gentleman. It means that it costs £2,000 to £3,000 per dwelling before a plan is drawn or the first brick is laid. This is a grave problem facing developers, both private and public, in our great cities.
  These difficulties do not spring from any evilness, crookedness or desire to do ill to our people. All the people with whom I have worked over the last few years, colleagues or members of either party—I was on the Greater London Council and served on the housing committee—impressed me by their good intentions. They are well meaning people. But it is precisely many of those good intentions which have led us along the road started in the 1920s or 1930s to the difficutlies which we are encountering today.
  One curious feature which has struck me about the thinking of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends in the councils throughout the country, some of whom I have met, is that they are almost conservative in their policy towards selectivity, because they apply a policy of selectivity to housing.
  I shall restrict my remarks more to Inner London, of which I have a greater knowledge than other parts of the country. Deliberately exaggerating, the attitude which I have encountered again and again is that council tenants are good and should be helped whether they need help or not, and that landlords are bad whether they are rich or poor.
  I should like to illustrate the case of a landlady in my constituency who does not live in the house which she owns. The rent which she receives, for some obscure and complicated reason, does not cover the rates which she has to pay. The family living in that protected house enjoys a considerably higher standard of living than this lady.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot be right. Whether it is a controlled or a regulated rent, the rates are an additional payment.
  Mr. Shelton: That is a good point. I have mentioned an exceptional case. It goes back some years to when this
  1704
  lady made an agreement with the council that it should be let at a special rent in return for some other consideration. In general terms the hon. Gentleman is right. But we must all know of cases where the rent does not, for instance, cover the repairs which the landlord should make.
  Mr. George Cunningham: But it does cover rates.
  Mr. Shelton: Generally speaking, it covers rates; but I think we can agree that it does not cover repairs. Perhaps that was not a god illustration.
  In general, private tenants are ignored even when, as we have seen over the last year or two, figures seem to show that on average they have lower incomes than average council tenants. These injustices and inadequacies create much hardship and bitterness and a great deal of difficulty. That is why I support the policies outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and those supported by Conservative-controlled councils over the last two to three years in Inner London.
  This brings me to the question of fair rents and massive rebates for those in need. I do not wish to go into detail. I should like to put three points on the fair rent and rebate concept.
  The first concerns the Social Aid Scheme, started some years ago by the Socialist-controlled London County Council. That was a form of rent rebate to council tenants in need. The intention behind the scheme was admirable. In the three years between 1965 and 1968 £200,000 to £300,000 were disbursed each year to those tenants who applied. Under the Conservative G.L.C. today, £1·7 million is being disbursed in rent rebates, which means that the hon. Gentleman who made that remark about sixpences was not talking about Inner London.
  If the previous Government had allowed the G.L.C. over a period of time to lift its rents to the fair rent level, its housing revenue account would now be in balance. Instead, it is not. It has a deficit of £8·1 million, equivalent to nearly 1½p on the rates for Inner London, and 1·2p for Outer London. Because the rents were not raised to the fair rent level the ratepayers is suffering a higher rate than he would otherwise be doing.

  1705
  My next point relates to a matter which I find extremely irritating and trying. A leaflet which is being distributed to council tenants in Lambeth, in my constituency—I assure the House that I am not reading selectively—says:
  "These questions affect you. Please read them carefully",
  and it goes on in the form of question and answer. The first question is:
  "What is the Conservative attitude to council rents?"
  The answer is:
  "The Conservatives believe that everyone, whether council or private tenant, should pay 'fair' rent."
  I accept that. There is no mention of rebates there, and I might add that rebates are not mentioned anywhere else in this little document. The next question is:
  "What do they mean by 'fair'?",
  and the answer is:
  "They mean that all rents should be allowed to rise to their maximum level."
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with my hon. Friends on this side of the House that that is a travesty of the facts.
  Mr. Denis Howell: What is a fair rent?
  Mr. Shelton: We know that the fair rent is the market rent with the scarcity element excluded. We know, too, from the figures that have been supplied that on average the fair rent is 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. below the market rent. Therefore, for anyone to say that what the Conservatives mean is that rents must rise to the maximum is distorting the facts.
  Mr. Tebbit: The Front Bench opposite has agreed with the statement that fair rents are maximum rents. These are the fair rents which hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced, although they now tend to call them "so-called" fair rents and the weasel words are starting.
  Mr. Shelton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution, with which I agree.
  The document to which I have referred is published by the Labour Party, Transport House. The statement is not true. What is more, it is a slur on the rent officers working in Lambeth. They are
  1706
  a fine body of men, doing an excellent job to the best of their ability, and to circulate leaflets such as this is to do them a disservice. I hope that note will be taken of what I have said, that the leaflet will be withdrawn, and that an apology will be made.
  We agree that council house building is important, but it is not the only way in which to solve the problem. It may be the most important, or less important, but there are other tools that are being used by Conservative councils—though such weapons were neglected by Labour councils, for whatever reason—and they are now bearing fruit.
  Some of these tools have been mentioned today. Reference has been made to the sale of council houses, to housing advisory centres—the Seebohm recommendation—to the increasing collaboration with new towns, to offering people opportunities outside the city centres, to housing associations and the help that they are getting from the G.L.C., among other authorities, to improvement grants, to the small, burgeoning save-as-you-pay schemes being run by some councils, and so on. All those things, and many others, have their part to play, and any council which is hypnotised by council house building is losing many advantages that it could gain if it were to adopt the plan that has been adopted in Lambeth, for instance.
  Lambeth, like most Conservative-controlled councils, uses all those methods to deal with the housing problem. If it were not the first to set up a housing advisory centre, as recommended by Seebohm, it was certainly among the first to do so, and I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that a visit to the housing centre in that area would be well worthwhile.
  The result of all that has been done in Lambeth is that in the last three years the council has rehoused 7,000 families, compared with 4,000 in the previous three years under Labour control. In 1971 it had 3,000 houses under construction, compared with 1,100 in 1968. Peterborough Week was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the other day. This was organised by Lambeth Council to draw attention to the opportunities existing in the new town of Peterborough.

  1707
  A public meeting was held in the town hall, which nearly 1,000 people attended. In fact, people had to be turned away because the interest in the project was so great that there was a capacity crowd. Every Saturday the council takes coach-loads of people to Peterborough to see what is happening there. A large number of applications has been received and already, within a few weeks, people are starting to move out. This shows what can be done by collaborating with the people who have housing problems.
  I am fortunate that my constituency is partly in Wandsworth. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that in the last three years there have been 3,200 completions in Wandsworth, compared with about 1,700 in the previous three years under the Socialists. Lewisham has the same sort of record—2,500 since April, 1968, compared with 1,850 in the three years before then.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Labour Government's Housing Subsidy Act had anything to do with the number of completions?
  Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman probably has a point, but not a very important one.
  Lewisham has rehoused 2,800 families since 1968 compared with 2,100 in the previous three years.
  One could ask, "Have not the rates increased very much in Lambeth as a result of this tremendous activity"? I am glad to assure the House that they have not. Over the last three years rates have gone up by 12p, of which the borough contributed only 3½p. The I.L.E.A. contributed 4p in that period, including the last rather remarkable rate increase, but I think that that is outside the terms of the debate.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: As another London Member, I am very interested in the hon. Member's speech. He quoted some figures of completions. Would he not agree that it would be more accurate to reflect the different policies of councils by quoting starts, and that many of the completions which he quoted as coming during the three-year Conservative period would have been
  1708
  planned two or three years before, under the previous Administration?
  Mr. Shelton: There is some truth in that, but the distressing figures for the previous three years were also planned under Socialist administrations.
  The sort of rate increases which we have been seeing under, for instance, the Socialist-controlled Inner London Education Authority might be a warning which is borne out by the average London rates rise in 1971–72 compared with 1970–71. In Inner London, we are in the fortunate position of being able to compare the performance of Socialist-controlled with Conservative-controlled boroughs. In the four Socialist-controlled boroughs, the average rise was 18 per cent. In the 28 Tory boroughs, the average rise was only 11 per cent. Perhaps the electors next week will take heed of what I have been saying.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not criticising, I am just making an observation, but we have had only two back bench speeches in 45 minutes. Many hon. Members want to speak. I hope that hon. Members will have some regard to that fact.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Shelton) referred to disparities in rates. This may be due to a number of things. For instance, one would like to know how many children there are in the Labour-controlled boroughs and how many in the Tory-controlled boroughs. This may be a major factor in educational costs, which of course are the main ingredient in rate expenditure.
  I want to deal mainly with rents. The hon. Member referred to what has happened in the last three years. It is significant that those three years correspond almost exactly with the operation of the Housing Subsidies Act. There is no doubt—I speak from Birmingham experience—that without that Act, with its massive subsidies, house building would have ground to a halt, certainly in Birmingham and probably throughout the country.
  The Tory record of house building in Birmingham is not bad at all, certainly compared with other Tory boroughs, but

  1709
  without massive assistance from the Government of millions of £s of subsidy they could not have gone on with their building. The picture is the same throughout the country. Therefore, the three-year period which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is very significant. This is the point which is crucial to any debate of rents.
  The Government are now proposing to dismantle the Housing Subsidies Act. We do not yet know for certain what will be put in its place. Negotiations have been proceeding behind closed doors between a Tory Government and a Tory-dominated local government cabal. What is happening we do not know. Nothing emerges from the smokescreen. It is strange that this Parliament which is supposed to be the governing body of the country, is not even told what is happening in these negotiations.
  We do not know what the proposals are. We hoped—perhaps with excessive optimism—that the Minister would give some sort of elucidation today of the ideas in the Government's mind, but he gave not an additional word in information. The smokescreen remained as thick as ever.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I will give some elucidation at the end.
  Mr. Silverman: I am sure that we will get none from the Government.
  Emerging from the smokescreen by accident are certain facts. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said that one of their Tory councillors had suggested that there would be an average increase of £1 a week in rents throughout the country. No reply was given—that was neither denied nor confirmed.
  This figure corresponds with my rough calculation. If the Government are going to save on local government housing expenditure, as announced in the White Paper of 3rd November, between £100 million and £200 million a year at the council tenants' expense, and if one considers also the cost of the rebate scheme and the cost of certain other items, the figure of £1 a week would seem to be fairly realistic.
  But this figure is in addition to the costs which will come from the increased
  1710
  cost of house building, and the cost of land. Land Commission or no Land Commission, the cost of land is still going up. With the increased costs also of repairs and administration, the figure of £1 a week for the average tenant will be totally additional. Tenants must face this.
  What is the Government's policy? We know that the whole of this Act will be demolished. There is to be "restructuring", as they call it, of local council rents. We have been told that this will affect not only new house building—as has been the case in the past—but existing houses, on which there is a sort of contract in existence between the Government and the local authorities that they will get such-and-such a subsidy for so many years.
  Will the Tories fulfil their promise before the election that housing subsidies would go entirely, except for selected classes of the community or for slum clearance, and be replaced by a rebate scheme for those who applied and submitted themselves to a means test? We do not know whether that policy has been abandoned. If it is still their policy, it will mean massive increases.
  I can think of certain estates in Birmingham, like Castle Vale and Chelmsley Wood, where new houses may have to pay a rent increase of £3 or £4 a week. The people in those areas already pay nearly £7 a week in rent and rates. Even with the good wages in Birmingham—it is still a prosperous place, although not as prosperous today by a long chalk as it was—those figures will impose a hardship not on a minority but on the generality of tenants.
  It is true that fair rents were introduced by the Labour Government. I did not object to the principle of fair rents, but I and a large number of hon. Members on this side have objected to the way that they have turned out. It is not the rent officers whom we are criticising, it is the rent assessment committees and the principles upon which they have operated. Their obligations are set out in Section 27 of the 1965 Rent Act, now embodied in, I think, Section 46 of the Consolidated Act, the 1968 Rent Act. This provided that the scarcity element should be eliminated, but one need only note the vast differences that exist between rents in,

  1711
  for example, some parts of Yorkshire and London and Birmingham to see that the scarcity element has not been eliminated.
  How does this apply to the council sector? Whatever the faults in the administration of the scheme, the assessment of rents for the purposes of the Rent Act in the private sector was done by an individual assessment of each house. Will that happen in the council sector? Of course not. It would be administratively impossible for millions of houses to be so assessed.
  It is proposed, instead, to say, "This is the sort of valuation made by rent officers in the private sector". I understand that this has been done in London by the G.L.C.; so many times the gross annual value has been the criterion in making the assessment. Is this the scheme the Government have in mind? If it is, it is quite different from the individual assessment type of operation which existed under the Rent Act, and it is not appropriate to call these fair rents.
  I was a Member of the Committee which examined the Rent Act when it was introduced. There was much discussion of whether we should adopt rent control based on gross value or control based on a scheme of individual assessments. The Minister of the day rejected the idea of assessment on the basis of gross value, though what the Government propose now represents precisely that. To say that this is a principle which the Labour Party introduced is, therefore, to state an untruth.
  The Minister referred to the Birmingham scheme, which I know well. I participated when the original Measure was debated and I did not oppose the Bill. I agree, in principle, that if council tenants get rebates private tenants should get them as well. But we are deluding ourselves if we think that this will make a substantial contribution to solving the hardship problem, because I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Birmingham scheme has not achieved what was hoped of it.
  The scheme provides for subsidies to private tenants equivalent to rebates in the council house sector. Birmingham Corporation has about 11,000 tenants in receipt of subsidy, or about 10 per cent. of all tenants in the public sector. The Birmingham scheme has been in operation
  1712
  for about six months. Something over 1,000 people originally asked for forms and 700 made application. Only 250 rebates are being paid, at an annual cost of £20,000. Even if one is not prepared to call the scheme a complete fiasco—because 250 tenants getting some sort of help is something—it is obviously a vast disappointment and proves conclusively that nothing very much can be expected of it. Why is this?
  It has been pointed out that the poorest section of the population lives in the private rented sector. As a result, a large number of them are already in receipt of supplementary benefit and do not qualify for the rebate. I am told that of those rejected under the Birmingham scheme, a large number were in receipt of supplementary benefit and thought they could get this as well.
  Then there are those in multi-occupation and furnished tenancies. Theoretically, they are not excluded from the Birmingham scheme, though I gather that they will be excluded from the Government scheme. While, theoretically, they qualify, as the assistance is not based on the actual rent paid but on an assessment—on a sort of fair rent basis—it is of little use to them because in this sector one finds the most extortionate rents being charged, especially in the multi-occupation situation. It is probably worse in London than in Birmingham. In other words, it does not matter in this context what rents they pay.
  It might be argued that this type of tenant could go to his furnished lettings tribunal and obtain a reduction in rent to correspond with the amount of benefit for which he is applying. But a reduction in rent will not be of much use to him when he has the prospect of being out on his ear within a few months because of his lack of security. Incidentally, the Government have refused to extend security of tenure for furnished lettings. In multi-occupation we will continue to get the massive exploitation that exists today.
  Side by side with this assistance to very few people, the Government propose to steadily dismantle rent control, or at any rate to hasten its end, and I gather that they also intend to diminish the area of regulation.
  For the private sector, the Government's policy will mean benefits for very

  1713
  few people and probably massive increases for very many. The people of Britain have nothing whatever to expect from this policy. They will show their feelings next Thursday, but unfortunately it will take them a lot longer to have an effect on the composition of this House, which many people who voted Tory at the last election now regret.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I wish at the outset to declare my interest. I represent a family of home builders who have been providing homes for the people in the North-West area since before the turn of the century.
  Before the first war we were providing terraced houses for less than £100 each, and before the second war we were providing homes for £280 each. We are now faced with the greatest inflation in building costs in the history of the industry.
  In earlier years the industry was highly competitive, one company with another. There was a ready availability of land, money for building and people to do the building. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for me to dwell on the more practical aspects of the provision of homes in Britain.
  When I read the Motion I marvelled at the effrontery of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not wish to be unkind, but I am surprised that many eminent hon. Members have put their names to it. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition should do that, because that is completely in character; but I am surprised that the others have done so.
  The first half of the Motion concerns me most:
  "That this House deplores the policies of Her Majesty's Government which are designed to increase the cost of housing…"
  Let us look at the record of the Labour Administration until last June. We have heard so much about it, but it will stand re-emphasis. They introduced the Land Commission and the betterment levy. To provide for the levy alone meant thirty shillings for every week of a twenty-five year mortgage on an average priced house of £5,000. The Labour Administration imposed selective employment tax on the construction
  1714
  industry because they regarded it as a service industry. A colleague of mine who was a florist making up wreaths and bouquets was exempt from selective employment tax. How farcical the situation was. Selective employment tax may be regarded by some as a mere bagatelle, but it increased the weekly cost of a newly built house by 7s. 9d. per week for the thirty years of a mortgage.
  Then we had the Construction Industry Training Board levy which was calculated to assist in training entrants to the industry and to give the industry greater skill and competitiveness. In spite of the millions of pounds spent by that board from its inception, the intake of youngsters from school to be trained in the craft industry began to diminish. As a result we have a shortage of labour in the industry.
  Another point which has not been mentioned, and is not likely to be mentioned, is that the building industry demands heavy goods deliveries to sites, In 1964, when the Labour Party first took office, the tax on the average eight ton lorry was £63 per annum. The Labour Government increased it to £216. It was a fantastic rise which increased the delivered price of goods for homes.
  Mr. Loughlin: If one is selective in one's statistics, it is very easy to make a case. But I notice that the Government do not propose to reduce any of these taxes, with the exception of selective employment tax.
  Mr. Owen: And the levy.
  Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me my intervention, it will be much shorter than if he will not. The Government have reduced S.E.T. by 50 per cent. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any builder who has reduced the price of houses as a consequence?
  Mr. Owen: I am coming to that.
  Mr. Loughlin: They have told us that they would not.
  Mr. Owen: There is no doubt that the Land Commission and the levy involved the most disastrous costs ever inflicted on home ownership. This began to filter through into the public sector, and it was only when local authorities had consumed

  1715
  the land they had for many years and had to go into the market for more land that they began to feel the impact.
  Although it may be argued that land prices would not necessarily come down because of the abolition of the levy, the levy triggered off an inflationary tendency which we shall never be able to control. I admit that the construction industry is not without fault. Both the employers and the employees are deserving of criticism, and it is time that they were criticised.
  Let us look at the labour situation in the industry. Housing costs are ever increasing. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Mr. Heffer) told us that there is unemployment in Liverpool. That is a subject on its own. But that does not apply throughout the country. The construction industry negotiated rate for wages is 9s. 3d. per hour. That is about 46½p, but I shall confine myself to the old currency. A rate of 9s. 3d. an hour is £18 10s. a week for a standard average working week for a craftsman in the industry. I have a copy of yesterday's Evening News which carries an advertisement for craftsmen in the construction industry at £40 per week for a five-day week. Does that indicate that there is a surplus of labour in that industry? Are the construction people prepared to pay £40 a week for craft labour when they can obtain it for £18 10s. a week? Labourers in the construction industry, according to the advertisement, are being offered £35 a week for a five-day week.
  All this has been put on the price of a house. We have the Ford Motors case all over again. The reason why we have not had a recent strike in the industry is that employers have acceded to every demand of labour. It is easy to have no problems if one continues to feed one's operatives with more money. There is no competition because there has now developed a vested interest in labour shortage. The intake of craft apprentices into the industry diminishes year by year. The operatives are quick to recognise that if they starve the industry of new intake they can maintain the high premium rates that they are obtaining. This is logical.
  In defence of increasing housing costs, there has been a considerable improve-
  1716
  ment in the specification and standards of accommodation. Parker Morris standards, central heating and insulation all cost more and it is inevitable that homes are now dearer. But higher building standards have to be paid for by the community. They are all very desirable, but up goes the rent.
  What can we do? Governments do not build homes competitively. That is left to the industry. On this I hope that I am on common ground when I suggest that we must be seen to be more competitive and must be given the opportunities of being more competitive. That is why I welcome Circular 10/70 which the Minister sent out in December. It is already beginning to have some effect. More land is coming on to the market, albeit extremely expensive land, and I have discerned a stabilising of acreage prices. They have not rocketed since last winter but have remained relatively static. I should like to see land becoming cheaper because it is basic to the price of the finished article.
  We must create a condition where we can use the full force of competition. My right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that it is vital to have competition in the construction industry, as in other industries, because competitiveness keeps prices down. What we have is not competitiveness, because once the moguls of the land companies have acquired the vast acreages of this country they have cut away any chance of competitiveness. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and I want to reintroduce into industry that which before the war used to provide a more competitive element. The small man is undoubtedly a highly competitive machine. A man with two, three or four acres and a small labour force will beat the moguls of industry hands down. Such a man is vitally concerned about the job; he works long hours; he has pride in his work and he is determined to be competitive. We must create conditions in which such men can be offered opportunities of competing with larger units.
  We cannot have labour holding the industry to ransom any more than we can have employers or landowners holding the industry to ransom. Building craftsmen are not capable of earning the rates they are receiving for the hours

  1717
  they are employed in the stress areas. They are receiving fantastically high rates against which other high rates pale into insignificance. I am not surprised if schoolteachers become upset when they hear that a building labourer can earn £35 a week for a five-day week. We must do everything we can to increase the intake of young school-leavers into the industry. It is no satisfaction for them to walk the streets looking for jobs. They should go into an industry which will provide the homes which are so badly needed.
  To the Labour Party universality of subsidies is a sacred cow. The Labour Party believes that it should subsidise everybody irrespective of their income level provided they live in a council house. Labour Members have protested against any intrusion into the subsidising of council houses. It is not for me to complain when I find, as I did when I went canvassing, cars outside the doors of many council houses and colour televisions inside those houses. Although this is an extreme case, it is amusing to recount that I went to the door of one council house outside which stood a car and in the garden of which was a 25 ft. cabin-cruiser. That house was subsidised. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend's statement that the principle should be "To each according to his needs".
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same principle to owner-occupiers? Would he suggest that an owner-occupier should be subjected to a means test to see whether he is entitled to tax relief on mortgage interest, which is a form of subsidy?
  Mr. Owen: I shall never be able to understand how the hon. Gentleman can equate a cash grant to a tenant with taking less from a man's earnings. Because we decide to take less from a man's earnings Labour Members call that a gift. It never has been a gift and it never will be. We are just taking less of his earnings from him.
  Mr. Silverman: Is not the consequence precisely the same?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) is giving way he must resume his seat. I
  1718
  again point out that many hon. Members want to speak. The more interventions there are the fewer hon. Members can be called.
  Mr. Owen: According to the yearbook of the town I represent, in 1941 the general rate was 10s. 6d. in the £ with a £931,000 gross rateable value; in 1970 the general rate was 13s. 10d. in the £ with a £6 million rateable value. This was where the money was going. I served on that town council. In every debate on such matters in that council the representatives of hon. Members opposite screamed for higher rates and more services. They were not interested in lower rates. They had not a vestige of an interest in lower rates. They wanted higher rates, higher subsidies and higher benefits for those who were getting subsidies. Hon. Members opposite must not now complain if rates are rising, because it was part of their policy. This council was Labour-controlled for 14 years up to 1968.
  It is hypocritical for the Labour Party to criticise the Conservative Government, who have been in office only ten months, as it does in the Motion. I suspect that the sacred cow of universality of subsidy is a form of mass bribery of council tenants for electoral purposes. It has happened. It is significant that next week is council election week. This is a Supply Day, the last day on which it was possible to have such a debate if reports were to get into local newspapers.
  On every conceivable occasion hon. Members opposite work to maintain their friends in council houses at artificially low rents, irrespective of whether such tenants can afford higher rents. To me, it is tantamount to bribing the electorate with the money of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. A fair rents policy according to the principle of "To each according to his needs" would be of far greater benefit to the truly under-privileged, because wages have increased considerably. Building societies work on the principle that a mortagor's salary must be at least one-third the purchase price of the house. Applying the same criterion to a council tenant's weekly pay or annual pay he would be able to pay a much higher rent. This is not an unreasonable proposal. But saving money on those who can well afford to pay we could give undeniable benefits to those who are less well off.

  1719
  I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: When I hear a speech like that just delivered by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Idris Owen) I dismay of the value of this place. If hon. Members intend merely to indulge in yah-boo politics of the kind in which the hon. Gentleman just engaged in the second half of his speech we might as well pack up here, because we can do that on street corners. In the first half of his speech the hon. Gentleman talked about things that he knew something about. We may or may not agree with what he said, but he knew something about his subject and it was valuable to hear him speak on that. In the second half of his speech the hon. Gentleman displayed not so much ignorance as the fact that he had not given the matter sufficient thought.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Motion is totally unreasonable and he implied that it is an indulgence in yahboo politics.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I said that it was hypocritical.
  Mr. Cunningham: The Motion says:
  "That this House deplores the policies of Her Majesty's Government which are designed to increase the cost of housing…"
  I cannot recall whether it was the Minister for Housing and Construction or the Secretary of State for the Environment who said some months ago that the difficulty with housing in this country is that people have never been prepared to spend enough money on their houses. It is no secret that the Government have said that they want to improve the housing situation by getting people to pay more for housing, so that part of the Motion cannot be hypocritical. It deals with an established and public part of the Government's policies.
  The second part of the Motion deals with the burdens of the domestic ratepayer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) explained very carefully the difference between the policies pursued by the Labour Government in providing a successively greater
  1720
  contribution from the national Exchequer to subsidise the rates and the Government's policy of stopping that. This must mean that the burden carried by the rates, as compared with that which would have been carried if our policy had been continued, must be greater, so the words on the Order Paper, far from being hypocritical, are merely a reflection of the Government's published statements and actions.
  The point at issue is whether the things the Government are doing make sense in the present housing situation. I was very disappointed in the Minister's speech. I had hoped that we could expect to hear some new points about Government policy on one aspect or other of the housing situation. We heard one new point, the reduction from five years to four as the period after which a house-owner may switch hack from the option mortgage to tax relief. The only part of his speech in which the right hon. Gentleman got the sympathy of the House was when he talked not about what the Government would do but about what the building societies are to do. Some of the things he mentioned may be very useful to people seeking a mortgage, but there was nothing in what he said about what the Government have been doing or are about to do. They have only been talking to the building societies about it.
  I very much agreed with the Minister when he said that housing is the one sphere of policy in which we have clearly totally failed since the war. That applies to the whole 25 years since the war. In relation to the dimensions of the problem facing us, we have all failed. It is therefore unfortunate that when we are discussing a subject of this degree of importance we should not have a fuller house. Parliament can hardly expect to be treated as a serious institution if we discuss matters of such significance with such small numbers.
  The housing conditions in my constituency, only two or three miles from this House, are absolutely appalling. I know of a family—husband and wife and two children—living in one room which could be fitted behind the back of Mr. Speaker's Chair. That is not a unique case, nor is it very common, but it is common enough to need emergency action to get rid of such conditions.

  1721
  Cases came to my notice last week of constituents in Milner Square in Islington who have been not illegally harassed but pressurised into leaving their controlled tenancies to live elsewhere. Last week the winklers employed to do that job were saying to people concerned, "It is worth £50 or if necessary £200 from us to get you to move out." When the recipient of such advice says that he would like to consult a solicitor in many cases he is told. "Don't do that, and don't go to your Member of Parliament. This is between you and me." These things are happening within three miles of this honourable House. When we are trying to deal with a situation like that, yah-boo politics should be left aside. None of us has a totally clean record on this. It is perfectly possible for us to discuss what can best be done, and disagree about it, without indulging in that kind of thing.
  There is another problem. Housing is, regrettably, now bundled up into the enormous and impossible Department for the Environment. We have a form of colonialism which needs to be stopped before it is too late. It is coming to be the case in inner London that working people on average earnings cannot afford to live where they are now. It would be said by most people looking from the outside at Barnsbury in my constituency that the environment is being improved. The condition of houses is being improved, the appearance of the streets is being improved, trees and balconies are springing up all over the place, and it is looking much better than it did 10 years ago. But the people who lived there 10 years ago cannot afford to live there now.
  It is very easy to improve the environment of an area if one is not improving it for the people who live there now. We must make sure that there are at least some bits of Inner London where working people can continue to afford to live. The policies of the G.L.C. in consciously going for a social mixture in areas like Barnsbury, which is the trend of the times, are exacerbating a trend which is working to the detriment of the traditional residents of such areas.
  Mr. Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the very Government policy which he is criticising proposes
  1722
  that there should be a subsidy for the tenants who he is complaining cannot now afford to live in his constituency under the policy that has been inherited?
  Mr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Minister's rent rebate scheme—when we are finally vouchsafed any knowledge about how it will work—will allow my constituents in Islington to live in the houses where they have lived for 50 years when those houses have been done up in the way that they are being done up, he does not understand that kind of area. That cannot happen. No kind of scheme could allow that to happen which did not cost £50 million or £100 million over the country as a whole. It is a much greater problem, and it needs to be tackled with far greater resources.
  I had hoped that the Government's proposed scheme for private tenants was one subject we should be told something more about this afternoon. For months the Government have declined to give us any information about this new scheme on the grounds that they are in discussions with local authorities. When they go into the discussions with local authorities, the first question that must be put to them is, "How much have you got in mind?", the question that the shopkeeper puts to us when we go to buy a present for our wives. They cannot possibly make any suggestions about the kind of scheme unless they know whether the Government are thinking of a scheme costing £10 million, £50 million, or £150 million for the country as a whole. I very much agree with one of my hon. Friends who complained that it is not right, and that it is unconstitutional, that that information, which must be in the Government's heads, and some indication of which must have been given to local authorities—otherwise, the talks have been a total waste of time—has not yet been given to the House. It is time we had it.
  But I mainly wanted to speak about council rents. I shall be as fair as I can, but some Conservative hon. Members seem to think that we on this side have an ideological attachment to having everyone as a council tenant. I do not know how many council tenants I have who are determined to remain council tenants, but I know that I have an awful

  1723
  lot who are determined to cease being council tenants as soon as they can. I have a lot of constituents who do not like living in high rise buildings. I am not determined to maintain people in such accommodation a moment longer than they wish to remain. But council accommodation is the only accommodation which anyone in Inner London, in the past at least, has had a chance of getting at a reasonable rent and in reasonable condition. High rise building is also the only way in which one can accommodate in Inner London enough people to provide the working services of Inner London. No one is attached to this as an ideological issue. It is a practical necessity.
  Mr. James Hill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the G.L.C. scheme for purchasing plots of land outside the London area to rehabilitate older citizens near the sea? Only last week the G.L.C. bought land in Southampton for this purpose.
  Mr. Cunningham: In other words, "Take Gran to the seaside". I am sure that hon. Members opposite understand human nature as much as we do. Is it really suggested that, when people have spent all their lives in a close-bound area, with their friends and relations around them, they should be, not pressurised, but successfully persuaded to go off and live at the seaside? Some will wish to do so and that is fine, but many will not. So that is not a significant contribution to solving the problem.
  Rents of council accommodation in Inner London today are fantastically high. This is something which many people do not seem to realise. Many of the 10,000 people on the Islington housing list cannot afford to go into the best council accommodation. In many cases, they would not be eligible for rebate because of family circumstances and income and so on, but they would still not be able to afford the £9 per week for new accommodation in the area. Council accommodation is not cheap these days, in the London area at least, although not normally in the other conurbations. One of the inheritances of the past is the idea that people are living in council accommodation at £1 or £2 a week. It is true no longer.
  1724
  Why are the rents so high? I pick out four elements involved. The first is the land price, which is very high. The second is the extra cost of building high rise. The third is the fact that, because councils are increasing the stock of land upon which council accommodation lies, and increasing, therefore, the stock of council accommodation, the present generation of council tenants is having to bear the burden of acquiring land for future generations of council house tenants which will be larger in size. That is a contribution, if one likes, to the well being of the new generation of council tenants which there is no justification for putting on to the present generation of council tenants. That is an element in the level of council rents which must be examined in order that we may take it out and have it borne socially by the community as a whole and not by the present generation of council tenants. The fourth element is that of the rebates to council tenants, which are borne by other council tenants. The larger the number and the more generous the rebates, the greater the burden on the other council tenants who are not getting the rebates.
  These are four of the elements which make council rents at the moment so very high, and there are others. It is important that the element in cost which is attributable to the fact that much council accommodation in Inner London is high rise should be taken off the backs of council tenants. No one wants to live in a high rise building. People only live there because that is all there is. High rise is built because it is the only way of housing a sufficient number. So these blocks are built for social reasons, for the benefit of the community as a whole, and the extra cost of living in one of these monsters should therefore be borne by all of us and not just by the unfortunate people who have to suffer living in the places and going up and down in the inefficient and often smelly lifts. The practical, day-to-day irritations of living in high rise blocks must be suffered to be appreciated. They are no palaces of comfort which people get for £9 a week.
  It is also important to find some way of taking some part of the cost of the land off the backs of council tenants and putting it on to the national Exchequer. Land, after all, is an asset which can

  1725
  never go away. It will be there in perpetuity for future generations of tenants or as an asset to the community. It would be reasonable to find some means of financing which would treat it as a current revenue matter and therefore reduce the burden on rents.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North contrasted the subsidies provided to council tenants with the tax relief available not to all owner-occupiers but to those who are currently borrowing money. It is important to distinguish between the totality of owner-occupiers and those who happen to be currently borrowing money. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) indicated that the relative value of the subsidy available is much greater in the case of tax relief than in the case of council subsidy. The relative value is even less favourable than he suggested, I believe, on the basis of information given to me last July by the Minister, because the number of people currently borrowing money is significantly less than the number of owner-occupiers.
  I cannot see a difference between providing an interest subsidy to council tenants, which is a straight cash value and which can be quantified easily, and foregoing some tax from the owner-occupiers. It is not at all different. Both have the effect of giving the person concerned a higher amount of buying power out of his wages than he would otherwise have, and the tax relief is wholly indiscriminate. In fact, it is worse than indiscriminate because it gives to the person with the highest income the highest subsidy. It goes to people with very high incomes. It gives to the person who borrows the most the biggest subsidy of all. I can calculate my subsidy from the community. It is £2 a week. I borrow very little—I am a very modest Member—so my subsidy is only £2 a week. But most of my constituents get nothing like that subsidy.
  I think, however, that we are breaking through on this point. There was a time when even to mention the presence of tax relief was to have the point dismissed by everyone in the way in which it was dismissed by the hon. Member for Stockport, North. Most people, even hon. Members opposite, now realise that there is a point there.
  Mr. James Hill: No.
  Mr. Cunningham: Some still do not realise it. Some people do not realise that this is not part of the law of nature. Nor is it generally the case in other countries. Some do it and some do not. In Canada, if I borrow money to buy my house at 10 per cent., then I pay the 10 per cent. and the tax man does not subsidise it down to 6 per cent. or, if I am paying surtax, down perhaps to 5 or 4 per cent.
  Let us recognise that those things are exactly the same, they are both subsidies. Let us try to equate them more and let us recognise that we do subsidise housing, not people, when it comes to tax relief and make that a general rule, given the housing situation that we have. Let us find a way of subsidising all forms of housing on a reasonably equitable basis. What we must look at to do that is the question of going over from tax relief to the option mortgage system for everyone.
  That would mean, if we kept the rate the same, a reduction in the cost to the Exchequer. But it would bear hardest on those who have no need of that anyway, so that ought to be a consideration of some attraction to the party opposite. It would be a very flexible system compared with present arrangements. If we were to look into that proposal we would find some means of putting the subsidies which we provide to various classes on very different basis from that at the moment but on a much more equitable basis.
  Over the last 25 years no one has been prepared to give to housing the degree of priority which it certainly requires. The social effects of bad housing have already been mentioned. I would contrast housing with roads. If we are held up on the way to Cornwall it does not make our children delinquent. If they are brought up in one or two rooms in conditions of utter squalor, dampness and so on then it is much more likely that there will be social problems later.
  Despite that, successive Governments since the war have been prepared, increasingly so in recent years, to spend any amount at all upon roads to get us from A to B and very little indeed on improving the appalling conditions which exist a few miles from here. In the London area in particular we should try

  1727
  to ensure before it is too late—and we only have a few years in which to do this—that it does not become impossible for working people with average earnings to live in Inner London. If it does then the services of the whole of London will suffer, quite apart from the fact that we will be telling people who have contributed so much and suffered so much in the interests of the community over the years that they must move out while others move in and take over the areas in which they have lived for so many years.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I admire the knowledge and integrity of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), who speaks most sincerely on this subject. I hope he will understand my point of view if I say that I agree with much of what he has said but do not share all of his conclusions. I will refer later to high-rise flats.
  I share the hon. Member's belief that in the last 25 years, in a very real sense, Governments of both sides have failed in their housing policies. We should recognise that we have, in one sense, undertaken a tremendous feat in building over 7¼ million new homes for families in the last 25 years. This represents about 40 per cent. of the housing stock of 18·6 million in Great Britain. When we look round at some of the slums which still exist, at the unfitness of many houses, the overcrowding and the obsolescence it is nothing short of a scandal that these conditions still remain in a nation which claims to be civilised.
  It is to these national problems rather than to petty partisan political points that I wish to address myself. Why do we have this overcrowding and obsolescence? I believe there are two reasons. The first is the tremendous increase in the population in the last quarter of a century. One of the most interesting statistics available is that 25 years ago the Registrar-General estimated that the population of the country in the year 2000 A.D. would be what it is today. In other words, we had no idea a quarter of a century ago that there would be 56 million people in the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister who is to reply is responsible for town and country
  1728
  planning but not even he is yet responsible for family planning. The Government cannot be blamed for the population explosion as the statisticians call it.
  The main reason for the explosion is not that people are having larger families but that they are marrying at an earlier age and having children earlier. This is something that was not anticipated 25 years ago. In my constituency, and doubtless in the constituency of Islington, South-West there is a particular problem as a result of the influx of immigrants. It is an area of high immigrant concentration which has brought its own social problems.
  The second reason why we have failed—and this is a technical matter—is our failure to renovate many of the old houses. If I were to suggest a slogan it would be that our housing policy for the future should be "to renovate, not demolish", wherever possible.
  I recommend that for two reasons. First, on sheer economic grounds it is cheaper to bring existing properties up to the standards we expect now rather than build new dwelling units. Secondly, people like to live in the more traditional sorts of home rather than these impersonal, to me at any rate, multi-storey blocks of flats. Failure to renovate must be laid at the door of both Governments. I think the main reason why we have failed—and I ask hon. Members opposite to understand the sincerity with which I say this—the method of financing housing which both Governments have undertaken in the last 25 years.
  Up to now the finance of housing has been at best irrelevant to the needs of the country and at worst nothing short of a scandal. Where subsidies are necessary—and they are necessary in housing—they should go to those in need and not be a blanket spread over the many who do not need them. As a general proposition this has not been the case in the last 25 years. Figures can conceal a multitude of things but the fact remains that the income coming into local authority dwellings is greater on average per dwelling than the income going into privately-rented, albeit unfurnished, property.
  This illustrates the point not that everyone who lives in council houses does not need to be subsidised but that there are people not living in council houses

  1729
  who need subsidising and who do not at present receive subsidy. I put that forward as a realistic point.
  In 1971 we should get rid of the emphasis we have put on the numbers game in housing. It was a mistake for the Labour Government to commit themselves to half a million homes a year by 1970. I do not want to be misunderstood. They should have been building half a million homes by 1970, but by concentrating on a figure they failed to bring to the attention of the nation other equally important things. It is not just a question of building desperately-needed homes; there should be greater concentration on saving existing homes from becoming the slums or the obsolescent houses of tomorrow.
  We must try in future to build the sort of homes that people want. As the hon. Member for Islington, South-West said, most families want to own their own home. I therefore see nothing criminally wrong in encouraging council-house tenants to start the process of owning their own home. I do not want to sound patronising about this, but there are divisions in our society being created solely by our housing policies. The council estate is on one side of the railway track and the private houses are on the other side. It would be better to have a greater mixture of council-house and private development in neighbourhoods in our towns and cities, especially in the new towns.
  If we want to encourage people to own their own homes, we must bridge the financial gap between the income of the average person in a council house and the income of the average person who starts to buy his own home. It is not that people do not want to start the process but that they are financially incapable of doing so. I welcome what was said this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction about his discussions with the building societies. The building societies have a much greater part to play in this than they have been prepared to play—or have been until the Minister's statement this afternoon.
  In speaking of the sort of homes that people want, one comes inevitably to the multi-storey blocks of flats which have been one of the curses of housing of the
  1730
  last decade. I do not necessarily blame either Government for this. My own profession, the architects and the town planners, have a heavy responsibility to bear. It seemed after the war that there was a simple choice. One either had to build upwards in city centres or build outwards in the green belts and on pastures new in the country. As the years have gone by we have found that we can house more people than we thought within our existing urban areas. I maintain that we can house people at almost as great a density in high-density low-level development in urban areas as in high-density high-level development. I blame successive Governments for giving greater subsidies for high-rise blocks of flats. People do not like living in high-rise blocks of flats, so we should not build them. If anyone doubts that people can be housed at the same density in low-level development, I refer them to the "in" area of London, Chelsea, where people are packed together; yet it is a highly desirable area in which to live.
  Rates and the rating system come within the terms of the Motion. The rating system is a nonsense and it is unfair. Although in yesteryear rates produced the greater part of the revenue of local authorities, that is by no means so now. Although it varies from one local authority to another, the central Government block grant is generally greater than the revenue from the rates in most local authorities. The system is out of date, and it is unfair for the obvious reasons which I do not need to rehearse again.
  Like many other hon. Members, I await with interest the Green Paper on local authority finance. I hope there will be a radical change in the method of raising local authority revenue. The reform of local government will give a golden opportunity for getting rid of the rating system at least on the domestic side. The rating system is as absurd today as the 18th century window tax was in that era. It is now the clear duty of the Government to state why, for example, a local income tax or a local sales tax, or a combination of both, cannot be a substitute for the domestic element of the rating system.
  I do not want to fall into the trap of descending into the yah-boo politics

  1731
  referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West. But the Motion is a political one, and it is, therefore, fair to point out that in the tenure of office of the Labour Government the average cost of building a council house went up by 40 per cent., private housing costs went up by nearly 50 per cent. and weekly local authority rents went up by almost 70 per cent.
  I end on a provocative note. We have been challenged by' the other side to say that we are the party of high rents. I would far rather see rents go up if the result were that the net rents of those people who are being subsidised but do not need to be subsidised went up and the people who are not being subsidised but ought to be were able to live in pleasanter, happier and healthier conditions. It is not so simple as to say whether or not one agrees with higher rents. I am sure that the Labour Government would not have admitted when they came to power in the latter part of 1964 that local authority rents would go up by 70 per cent., as they did. I therefore think it would be irresponsible for the Opposition to be given a categorical assurance about how much rents will increase.
  I hope that within a few years we shall have a better and fairer system of housing for our people. Only by the measures being brought forward by the Government, not complete in themselves but a start in the right direction, shall we get rid of some of the appalling housing conditions which, alas, exist, certainly in parts of my constituency, today.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mrs. Doris Fisher: I wish to apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate because I have been attending the Standing Committee on the Immigration Bill. Therefore, many speakers no doubt may already have covered some of my points.
  One thing that mazes me about the Conservatives is that they try to make out that housing is not a party political subject, when the whole Tory philosophy is based on a feeling that, because public money is being provided to build homes for people who cannot buy homes of their own, it has to be subjected to election propaganda and all the party strife which flows from it.
  1732
  Knocking the council house tenant has become a low-grade parlour game. Many instances can be given that, by implication, because a council house tenant rents his property he is somehow a lesser person than anybody who is repaying a mortgage. In other words, it is being said that as a citizen he is less responsible. A pamphlet issued by the Housing Research Foundation entitled "Home Ownership in England and Wales" quotes the Secretary of State for the Environment as saying:
  "It is the owner-occupier who makes the major improvements so as to provide the modern amenities of a bathroom and a kitchen. It is the owner-occupier who takes the most positive interest in the decisions affecting the entire community."
  As a representative of a Midlands constituency, I do not accept that that attitude applies only to those people. There are no properties in my area, except a few which are waiting to be cleared under slum clearance schemes, which belong to private owners. I certainly do not accept that the people whom I represent in Ladywood are any less socially responsible than people in any other constituency.
  Mr. Tebbit: I wonder why the hon. Lady did not read the other part in the same pamphlet which she quoted, which appears to be by a Mr. Richard Crossman:
  "The extension of our council housing programme is exceptional. It is born partly of a short-term necessity, partly of the special conditions inherent in modern urban life, whereas the building for owner-occupation is normal: it reflects a long-term social advance which will gradually pervade every region of the country."
  Does not that seem to be a bipartisan housing policy?
  Mrs. Fisher: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, no doubt he can do so a little later and can then make his own points.
  Almost everywhere in the world there are not enough decent houses for those who can afford only to rent. All the great capitals of the world have similar problems in finding housing accommodation for these people. I am not against owner-occupation as such, but it is important to remember that there are certain people who in the whole of their lifetime

  1733
  will never be owner-ocupiers. Who is to build homes for the not-so-poor? Even in the United States, where private enterprise is supposed to be successful in almost every aspect of life, the city authorities are having to spend money on providing homes for people who cannot afford to purchase their own homes. Private enterprise, wherever one looks, must provide housing at a profit.
  The difference between the two sides of the House is that we believe that there should be a form of Socialist justice to people who cannot provide homes for themselves. I accept that home ownership will increase, and rightly so. However, I am concerned about the homeless families who live in appalling conditions in the centre of large towns. I know something about these shocking conditions because this kind of housing can still be found in my constituency. There are people who, through no fault of their own—because in the main they are in the category of the low-wage group—cannot, even if they find a house to purchase, go ahead because they do not qualify for a mortgage.
  In the large conurbations there is the real problem of finding sufficient land on which to rehouse the people who can only afford to rent. Birmingham has a particularly serious problem of finding housing land. Perhaps we could be told this evening, when the Minister replies, whether he is to take a speedy decision about the land in North Worcestershire which is so important for housing needs. The delay has meant that Birmingham will have 4,500 fewer houses in the pipeline than it should have. The figures which I have obtained from the City of Birmingham architects' department show this quite clearly.
  There is concern in my area because a building organisation which was built up to provide some 9,000 houses for the city of Birmingham has given up because the land has not become available quickly enough. Once that building labour is dissipated, we shall see a decline in the number of houses built. The Secretary of State for the Environment will have to take some responsibility for that.
  We have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Labour Government were not able to provide houses in the
  1734
  right numbers. It must be remembered that in 1969 the then Minister of Housing was forced to write to local authorities which seemed to be acting against the best interests of the people whom they served. It was apparent that some Tory-controlled authorities were exhibiting their traditional dislike of local authority housing. We on this side know that the Tory interest in the council tenant can be likened to the interest shown by the Devil in holy water.
  I was for some time chairman of the Birmingham Housing Committee. Even since the Conservatives gained control in that city, I have often come to the Minister to ask for more and more money to help to balance our housing revenue account. I hope that as a result of our negotiations with the Minister we shall certainly not receive any less than we are receiving at the moment.
  The great concern of local authorities is in balancing their revenue accounts. I have always felt it wrong in a housing account which shows only income and expenditure. Nothing that appears in the housing revenue account takes cognisance of the assets owned by a local authority in respect of the houses under its control. It is easy for the Tories in Birmingham to say that £4 million has come from the houses sold to owner-occupiers in the council house zone. All they are doing is realising their assets at market prices. But there is nothing in the balance sheet to show that the assets, in fact, are very great. This problem could be overcome by including assets in the revenue account rather than merely in the form of income and expenditure.
  Rents are a large item in the family budgets of workers. If the Government are to make very sharp increases, they will accentuate cost inflation. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen realise it but an increase in rents inevitably results in greater pressure from trade unions for wage rises.
  In the large conurbations, much housing has still to be provided by the local authorities, since they are trying to create better housing conditions for the people. But hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise that rents in our large cities are not low. In my constituency, I hold a weekly advice bureau. Many people come to me who live in houses which

  1735
  are under slum clearance orders, and they are glad at last to have the prospect of bathrooms, hot water, and lavatories to themselves, but they all tell me that they cannot afford more than £4 or £5 a week. I have to tell them to apply for rebates to help them over the hurdle. The economic rents being charged for new properties which have been built in the City of Birmingham are out of reach of the majority of families at present living in slum clearance areas. A worker earning £22 a week finds that he has very little left for his family to live on if he has to pay £7 or £7.50 for a rented house in Birmingham.
  We hear a great deal about economic rents. Do the Government mean the economic rent less the Government's subsidy when they talk of a fair rent? Are fair rents to be based on a maximum figure? Should not they be below £7 a week, or must a tenant be squeezed for the maximum that he can afford to pay? Will the Minister place a ceiling figure on rents, and will he also give an income level below which rebates will be paid? All these matters concern people who live in council properties. After all, it is they who have to pay each week, and, quite rightly, they want to know at what point they will be penalised and at what point the Government may give them benefits.
  Another point which concerns me is whether the Minister intends to include teenage wages in his calculations in devising a fair rent system. If the income of a working teenager is to be included in that of a family living in a council house, the result is that the household may not be entitled to any subsidy. If that is to be the position, then obviously the same must apply in the private sector so that the earnings of a working teenager are set against the tax relief which is given.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) said that just over 10 per cent. of all those who live in council properties in Birmingham at present receive rent rebate from the local authority. However, that percentage does not take into account the thousands of people, most of them elderly, who benefit under the social security system. The Department of Health and Social Security has informed me that approximately 30,000
  1736
  council tenants in Birmingham receive supplementary benefit designed to help them pay their rents. In the main, it is the elderly for whom provision is made in this way. But one wonder just who will be able to pay the extra amounts in order to bring down the rents of the unfortunate. If rents are increased, at the same time one increases the number of people who will benefit from the subsidy arrangements provided by local authorities. Any increase in rent results in many more people coming into subsidy schemes.
  We do not know what the Government will decide to do. When they came to office, they introduced a number of measures very quickly, and results soon began to flow. However, on housing, the Minister is always having consultations with local authorities. Since about November of last year, hon. Members on this side of the House have been asking what is to be the Government's policy on housing. The answer always comes that the Minister is still consulting local authorities. Surely by now some local authorities ought to have been able to bring forward a plan for the Minister to put into operation. I am surprised that Birmingham has not given the lead.
  Is not the entire approach to fair rents based on an illusion? Does the Minister really believe that if financial aid is given only to those families in need, so much will be saved from areas of little need and from council tenants who can afford economic rents? Does he feel that from that small group of people he will create vast reserves of money to help areas of special need in both the private and the public sectors? I believe that when he begins to work out the figures he will find that he has been labouring under a complete illusion.
  8.09 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Trew: It is a great pleasure to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher), who spoke with great feeling about the problems of council tenants. I do not accept what she says about the attitude of the Conservative Party to council tenants, however. Certainly we do not regard them as second class citizens. From a practical point of view, a large number of them vote Conservative, as the hon.

  1737
  Lady will know from her experience in the General Election. We regard their problems as being every bit as important as those of owner-occupiers.
  I must first declare an interest, in that I have spent most of my working life in the construction industry and still have interests in it.
  The Motion refers to the cost of housing, and the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) gave us his interpretation of what this meant. However, I think that we are entitled to consider the main elements of housing costs and the previous Government's record on them; namely, land prices, construction costs, and the level of interest rates.
  We have, quite rightly, buried the Land Commission. It undoubtedly helped to increase the cost of housing land in two ways. First, it slowed down the rate at which building land came on the market. In a situation where the price depends on supply and demand—this broadly describes the housing market—to slow down the supply must help to increase the price. Secondly, vendors added the levy to the price which they hoped to get, and in some cases they were successful in getting a higher price.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) disagrees with this proposition. He suggests that land can be sold at one price only—namely, the market price—and that one cannot get more for it. Until recently I should have agreed with him. But, as a mere politician, I am always ready to defer to the experts in these matters.
  I was interested to read an article by Professor Denman, who has probably thought more deeply about land prices than anybody in this country, in which he expresses a contrary view. In his article,
  "Lessons from the Land Commission",
  which appeared in "The Three Banks Review" in March this year, he said:
  "The land market was a vigorous seller's market: All admitted it by the concern over the level of land prices. It was nonsense to speak of stabilising land prices, let alone bring them down, under a policy which imposed a 40 per cent. levy on the development value passing in land transactions. There is a considerable amount of evidence that the 40 per cent. betterment levy on the development value realised from sales of interests in land stimu-
  1738
  lated the rapidly rising land prices, a case of latent market disequilibrium being revealed by the provocation of a new and unexpected cost goading the vendors to reach after and gain the hitherto hidden heights to which demand was prepared to take the price level."
  There is a great deal in that point of view.
  The final test of any land policy surely is the number of houses built. Surely it is no coincidence that the only years since 1950 in which the house building programme went into decline were the years of life of the Land Commission. It is no coincidence that the dramatic increase in housing starts which my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon have followed the Government's policy of urging local authorities to make more land available—and we are seeing only the beginning.
  Concerning the release of land, I ask my right hon. Friend to look hard at derelict horticultural land, particularly round London, to see whether some of it can be brought into residential use. I believe that it could make a considerable contribution.
  Construction costs have been increasing steadily since 1964. I speak from experience in the construction industry. It is strange that a party which is now concerned about the cost of housing should have imposed selective employment tax on the building industry.
  A point must be made on construction costs. The biggest single element in construction costs is wages. On a typical housing project, about a third of the cost is the builders' wage bill, about a third is specialist sub-contractors' costs, and the remaining third is materials. Adding together the builders' wage bill, the wages paid by sub-contractors and the labour element in manufactured items and materials delivered to the site, it is no exaggeration that about two-thirds of the cost of a house is represented by wages. If there is an inflationary situation on the wages front in general, it follows, as surely as the night the day, that there must be inflation in building costs.
  If the new-found concern of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the cost of housing is genuine, they can make a valuable contribution to stabilising costs by using their influence to discourage inflationary wage claims.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Hon. Gentlemen opposite objected when we did it.
  Mr. Trew: My right hon. Friend this afternoon pinpointed the fact that whereas in 1964 the average industrial wage could service a mortgage on the average new house, today it needs a weekly wage of about £33 to get a mortgage on the average-priced house. The ability of purchasers to borrow is critical to our future housing programme, particularly when we consider that we are hoping to expand the voluntary housing movement, which will also depend on building society finance. I endorse the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) that the Government should urge upon the pension funds the possibility of their investing in the residential mortgage market.
  I should like to commend another suggestion to the building societies for the future—the possibility of their offering mortgages at lower interest rates in return for a share of the capital appreciation on resale of a house. I believe that we shall have to explore new methods of housing finance if we are to make it possible for the great demand for owner-occupation to be satisfied.
  The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) said today that the relationship between a private landlord and tenants was unhealthy. He later qualified that by saying that he was concerned about the abuses which take place in that sphere. We all deplore the abuses which occur, but it is unfortunate to dismiss out of hand the contribution that can be made by private rented housing. The Americans certainly do not feel that way. I believe that they are now granting double depreciation allowances for the building of flats for private letting. I hope that in time we shall do something to stimulate the building of private rented accommodation.
  I put it to the hon. Member for Kensington, North—I am sorry that he is not present—whether we are satisfied with a situation where one family in four has to depend on a public body for the roof over its head. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the dedicated work carried out by local authorities and housing managers. I hope that local authorities will continue to make a contribution to housing, particularly in slum clearance and the housing of old
  1740
  people. But surely we want to lessen the dependence of families on the State, in effect, for housing.
  If we do not want to go the whole hog towards private rented accommodation, there is a halfway house in the voluntary housing movement. I was most encouraged by the news which my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, in reply to a Written Question, of a very dramatic increase in approvals of dwellings in co-ownership schemes sponsored by the Housing Corporation. Not much has been said tonight about the voluntary housing movement. I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up he will tell us about the Government's plans for it.
  Earlier today, my right hon. Friend announced some dramatic and most welcome increases in housing starts. I believe that these are the first fruits of the boldest and most imaginative housing policy which this country has seen for many years.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. David Stoddart: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) too closely in what he has said, although I may touch on one or two matters which he raised.
  The Minister said that to own one's house had now become the "in" thing. The Minister really is not with it, because it has always been the "in" thing to own one's house. Before the war, when houses were considerably cheaper than they are now, it was certainly very much the "in" thing, and time has proved that those fortunate enough to own their own houses have done very nicely indeed because they have been able to keep pace with inflation.
  There is no doubt that it is desirable to own one's own house, but there is, nevertheless, a great need for a substantial pool of rented property, for several reasons. First, although it is easy to talk about the benefits of owner-occupation, the fact is that many people are not in a position to own their own houses, even if they want to, for various reasons. There are others who feel that they cannot shoulder the responsibility of a mortgage. We must think of them, because they are citizens of this country in the same way as are those who own their own houses.
  Another factor that we must take into consideration is that in the context of our

  1741
  present economic situation there is a need—as there will be in future, provided we can get the unemployment level down—for mobility of labour, and one of the things that helps mobility of labour is a good pool of rented property so that people can move easily from one city to another, from one area to another, without having to incur the vast costs—and they are vast—of selling one house and buying another, of having to give half one's capital appreciation to the house agent and the solicitor for the services they render, however small. When we talk about owner occupation, let us not forget the need to keep up our stock of rented property.
  In the main, unless we can by some means or other encourage private people to provide rented property, it will be the local authorities who will have that duty, and it is important that they are in no way discouraged from doing that. I believe that the Government's policy will have the effect of discouraging local authorities, because what they need is confidence that they will be able to build their houses to let at a reasonable rent. If they cannot be assured of that, they will build fewer houses than they otherwise would, for fear that their houses will be left empty, and thus adversely affect their housing revenue accounts.
  That is a fact, and we have seen it in a number of instances. The Minister knows that the Reading County Borough, of which I was a member, delayed starting any houses for 18 months because, it said, the adoption of Parker Morris standards would put 2s. a week on the rent. It is true that it was a Conservative authority, and that since the election of a Conservative Government it has altered its view and has now started to build again to Parker Morris standards, but there is this need to give local authorities confidence that if they build they will be able to let their houses at reasonable rents.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's proposals are different from that? Their proposal—which the Minister refused to spell out, and he is therefore misleading the House—is to put rents up by 15s. a week every year until they reach the economic rent figure.
  Mr. Stoddart: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was about to touch on that. It is quite clear that by attaching the Government's contribution—the subsidy as it is called—to the person rather than to the house, many individuals will have to pay vastly increased rents not only in one year but in many years to come.
  We ought to consider, also, the problem of slum clearance. Slum clearance and its replacement with reasonable living accommodation will be the duty of local authorities. We have heard altogether too little from the Government about what additional encouragement they will give to local authorities with severe slum clearance problems, and there are many such authorities in the country.
  The Minister tended to play down the impact of these proposals on individual council rents, but surely the Government's policy is bound to mean that a smaller subsidy will be distributed among a greater number of people, and that a great number of already relatively poor people will be subsidising other poor people? This is not a redistribution of wealth in the Socialist sense. This is not a redistribution of wealth from those who can well afford to pay to those who cannot. This is a redistribution of a subsidy within a poorer section of the community. We must understand that that is what the policy is all about, and I believe that council house tenants will understand it very clearly, indeed.
  Another factor that we must consider—I do not disagree with this policy, although I should like to see more money put towards it—is that by subsidising the rents of private tenants the Government will inevitably increase the pressure on private rents. Let there be no mistake about that. That is precisely what the effect of the Government's policy will be, because they will be subsidising private landlords, and the tendency will be to ask for more rent for the houses that are let.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government have no intention of subsidising rent rebate schemes? They intend to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of the rent allowance. That money will come from the ratepayer, but the Minister did not mention that today either.
  Mr. Stoddart: I again thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is well known that the Government's policy is to swing more of the burden of taxation on to local sources.
  I now come to the criticism that council tenants are being feather-bedded, and that they are subsidised pets of the Labour Party. They are not the subsidised pets of the Labour Party, and I think that we ought to get one thing clear. Far from being subsidised, council tenants probably contribute more than any other body of people to the general public ownership of property. This is something which is unfortunately not realised by the party opposite, or perhaps by the public. But it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher), when she said that we should consider not the income and expenditure account but the balance sheet. That would give quite a different picture.
  When local authorities fix rents, they take into account the capital cost of the house, the interest paid on it, the repairs over sixty years and the housing management finance, and from that they deduct the annual subsidy. So the council tenant pays all the costs, including the cost of land, except for the subsidy. If hon. Members drew up a balance sheet for any local authority, they would see that the housing assets exceeded by many millions of pounds—if it was a large authority—the amount which is paid into the housing revenue account from public funds. So the ratepayers and taxpayers are getting a very good deal. Unlike the owner-occupier, at the end, the council tenant owns nothing. I hope that we will hear less in future about "featherbedded" council tenants.
  There is a serious housing shortage. We have to build many more houses. But Ministers could bring a great deal of influence to bear on one aspect. We are destroying perfectly good houses for dubious purposes—merely to put through roads and other things at the whim of a local authority which might not have examined the implications closely enough. I hope that, when he has such proposals before him, the Minister considers them not once but twice or three times. One of the greatest sins in this country is to destroy a good house. We simply cannot afford to go on doing so.
  1744
  The Minister announced his consultations with the building societies. It is all very well talking about assisting owner-occupiers to save through the building societies, but many of these young people are already paying £5 and £6 a week for a bed-sitting-room. How on earth one can expect them also to save through a building society, at about the same rate, a deposit for a future house, I do not know.
  The Minister should think this through again, because there may be other methods of assisting young people to buy their own houses. One possibility is allowing them to commute future income tax relief in order to get a deposit. This is done in one part of the United Kingdom already, and it is a system which might commend itself to the Government.
  The housing situation in Britain is serious and will be made a lot more serious by Government policies. For that reason I shall certainly support the Motion.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: As I shall probably be critical of the Opposition later—after all, it is their day, so I guess it is our day to be critical of them—I should first like to mention the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). He is such a nice man that I wonder how he manages to hold on to such extraordinary ideas. I would exclude him from every stricture which I intend to make about the Labour Party because, to his credit, he has never made any bones of the fact that he disagreed about the previous Government's policy on housing in many respects. I do not agree with him, but I respect him greatly for it.
  The hon. Member raised an interesting point about the number of bankruptcies in the construction industry. He may recollect that I asked the Minister this very question not long ago. In 1969, the number of bankruptcies was 857, and in 1964, it was under 600. So that is another creditable achievement of the Labour Party—they managed to increase bankruptcies in that industry. [Interruption.] I still suspect that the Motion has a lot to do with the local elections.
  I am surprised, in view of the record of the Labour Government, that they

  1745
  have been able to find eight supporters with the gall to sign this Motion. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) described the Motion as a reflection of our announced policies. It is certainly a reflection, but in a mirror—it is back to front, twisted right round because it uses the words
  "designed to increase the cost of housing".
  I imagine they have the gall to table a Motion in these terms because their policies were not designed to do anything. They just happened by accident and incompetence, which hon. Gentlemen opposite have to forgive because they have to live with them whenever they are in office.
  It is extraordinary how words can be used so that they change their meaning. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) established fair Tents which according to hon. Gentlemen opposite were fair rents. Ours, on the other hand, are not fair rents but "so-called" fair rents. [Interruption.] I understood that what constitutes a fair rent has been made clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite time and again.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that when they impose a tax which raises the cost of living, and particularly the cost of housing for everyone, it can be called "selective", whereas when we propose to get rid of it and hold back the increase in the cost of housing for everyone it is called "divisive". This is an extraordinary use of words, though "divisive" has become the new parrot cry on the benches opposite.
  I am willing to bet that on Judgment Day as the Lord divides those on the left from those on the right somebody at the back will be heard to shout, "It is divisive"—and I know on which side he will be standing.
  Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will not be there.
  Mr. Tebbit: Everyone turns up on Judgment Day. [Interruption.] I do not know what hon. Gentlemen opposite read into that clap of thunder and bolt of lightning, apart from the fact that we are heading for some bad weather.
  Mr. David Stoddart: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has upset somebody.
  Mr. Tebbit: Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not underrate the powers of this Government.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be that the hon. Gentleman had been guilty of a breach of privilege and somebody is very upset about it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Maybe the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) has angelic powers One never knows.
  Mr. Tebbit: The thoroughly churlish way in which announcements made by my right hon. Friend are received by hon. Gentlemen opposite is equally surprising. He is taking steps in the right direction, and they are not the first such measures he has introduced. They are designed to help people who are seeking homes, yet he gets not a word of praise from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They only sneer.
  It is an achievement for my right hon. Friend to have got the building societies to agree that after only six months of regular saving they will consider advances of 100 per cent. to new borrowers. This worth-while advance deserves a better response from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have not referred to the new effort which the Minister has announced to look at the whole stock of housing. I have previously badgered my right hon. Friend about the minimum period during which one can stay on the option mortgage and am grateful for his announcement. Though I am reminded of a favourite grace of my grandfather:
  "We thank you Lord for what we've had,
  If it had been more we would have been glad."
  Just for a while I ask them to accept that this matter is too serious just to be thoroughly partisan because it is local election week. Let them stop for a while imputing bad motives to everyone with whom they disagree. Let them accept that Conservatives as well as Socialists want to see a nation that is decently housed. If that strains their credulity—clearly it strains the credulity of some of them—they should consider what sort of attitude I have when I go electioneering. When I turn into a street which is neat, tidy and trim, where the houses are well cared for and the hedges are trimmed, I think that it is good territory for my party. I know

  1747
  members of Labour Parties who describe those as bad areas electorally. I get no electoral advantage out of run down, decayed housing and deplorable housing standards. I want to see that ended, as we all do. I get sick and tired of imputations to the contrary. Why do not hon. Members opposite sometimes come out from under their white sheets and admit that the policies which have been followed, not just in the disaster era from 1964 to 1970 but for the last 25 years, have not provided the answers?
  Mr. James Hamilton: I am not electioneering. In Scotland we have had our local elections, and therefore the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of electioneering. Is he aware that in Scotland during the last five years of Labour Government we had record house building and that in Glasgow, which has the worst housing record in Europe and is a deplorable city for housing, in the first three months of a Conservative-controlled local authority not even 300 houses have been built.
  Mr. Tebbit: Scottish Members have recently been making much play of the fact that the Labour Party made substantial gains in the recent elections in Scotland. If anything, that underlines what I have been saying rather than the reverse. I leave other hon. Members to speak for their constituencies. I speak for mine.
  My constituency is lucky in most ways. In its housing it is very fortunate. But I am constantly dealing with constituents who find themselves in trouble because they are some sort of tied tenant, in effect, of public housing authorities to whom they are often expected to pay some sort of tribute out of gratitude and turn out at the right time. Often they want to move from one rented home in public ownership to another, sometimes for a better job, sometimes to be near to another member of their family, or sometimes because they do not like the neighbours. But what do I find? If a tenant of a new town home in Harlow wants to work in Brentwood he cannot move to Basildon new town to be nearer his job. How absurd it is that there is no provision for this sort of thing. He is a prisoner of the system. A son or a daughter who wants to set up home but cannot get a job in Harlow
  1748
  new town is banned from Harlow. What an absurdity it is. The family become divided. Thoughts of having the liberty to move just because one dislikes the neighbourhood or wants a different garden are just too absurd in the public sector to be endured.
  I have a constituent in Chingford who fell on hard times. He had to sell his house. Eventually things improved and he now has a decent job again—but no home. He cannot get on the council housing list because he was a householder. He does not want a subsidy or assistance. He can pay his way. However, because of what we have done in the last 25 years there is no rented accommodation available for him. What a nonsense it would be to continue the politics of the last 25 years when they have failed in this manner.
  Today we have had a display of vindictiveness towards private landlords. Why? What is wrong with owning a house and hiring it out as opposed to owning a television set or a car and hiring it out? These are proper economic activities, and the sooner we can return to them the better.
  We hear constant carps about what is called the subsidy to the home owner or to the mortgagor. Cannot hon. Members opposite ever tell the difference between a subsidy and not paying a tax that might otherwise be levied? There is a difference, unless one belongs to the school of thought that thinks that the whole of a man's earnings should be taxed and that anything that he is allowed to keep is a concession. We have had hypocrisy in plenty.
  Mr. Stoddart: The council tenant or any other tenant is paying rent in the same way as an owner-occupier is. Would it not be right for the rent to be allowed as a tax benefit in exactly the same way as mortgage interest is?
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman just misses the point. It is as simple as that. Clearly he is stuck with the idea that all income should belong to the State or should be taxed and anything left to him who earns it is a concession.
  We cannot continue with this humbug that supports 32 per cent. wage claims here and 40 per cent. wage claims there and opposes fair rents. I am not one of those who think that high wages are

  1749
  necessarily a bad thing. In many cases wages at the bottom of the scale have been too low. However, hon. Members can no longer support rising wages and consistently say that those who over the last 25 years have attained such standards that they now think in terms of holidays abroad and all the other things which used to be regarded as luxuries but which are now commonplace should continue to get a free ride or a cheap ride on the backs of others whose need is greater.
  Last night the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made an impassioned plea for selectivity in aid to the development areas—the needy areas. Tonight we have a series of equally impassioned pleas for no selectivity in aid in housing: it must go right across the board, irrespective of need. We are told that we are being thoroughly wicked to think of taking from those who are sufficiently well off to pay a fair rent and using that money to help those who have been denied aid by the conscience-stricken Opposition who were not conscience-stricken when they were in Government.
  Variety is the spice of life, but when two such contradictory pleas are made on successive nights it is not variety. It is more like Northern Music Hall. I shall never accept a society which is rigged to prevent the ordinary decent family from being able to stand on its own feet, pay its own way, and pay its full rent or buy the roof that is over its head. That we have failed to get in the past 25 years. Thank God we now have a Government with the courage and humanity to stand the racket of this sort of Motion, which is throughly hypocritical and full of humbug, and to move towards the new policies that we need.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: When I heard some Conservative hon. Member saying earlier, with their hands on their hearts, that they were not anti-council house tenants, I thought they might be being honest, but they were schizophrenic. For the past 20 minutes we have heard from the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) the expresssion of a classic Tory class attitude towards the people of this country. The hon. Gentleman laughs and thinks it is funny, but if he tells me that I can determine my electorate on the basis of the kind of gardens
  1750
  people have, in the way that he described, then if that is not the sort of snob, snide Toryism that we have had for too long, I should like to know what it is.
  There are a number of things that I should have liked to deal with, but I want to talk for a minute or two about how far it will be possible, if at all, to expand the housing programme. The Minister for Housing and Construction presented certain proposals to the House, which we shall have to examine carefully before we can evaluate them completely. There may be an area here in which the Government's actions can increase the houses available. The six months savings scheme, under which a person who saves regularly for six months can possibly obtain a mortgage without an additional deposit, may have some attractions, but it will be only very limited.
  The scheme will not affect a very broad band of people, because there are two factors in it which militate against its being acceptable over a wide area. First, when a large number of people are having to pay excessively high rents for private rented accommodaton they are not in a position to save regularly, and, consequently, will not come within the scheme. Second, there are two valuations for secondhand houses, the market valuation and the valuation arrived at in the building society's survey. Many people who would want to enter the scheme would find themselves in difficulty, particularly in the purchase of secondhand houses, because of the difference between the market value price and the valuation upon which the mortgage is apparently bound to be based.
  Has the Minister examined in more detail la scheme that has been very close to my heart for a long time, which would not cost the Government a great deal of money? I know that the Government will be very interested in that aspect of it. I am referring to the guarantee mortgage scheme, a very simple scheme applying to a very broad band, particularly young executives and the young graduate leaving university who has a distinct earning potential but a potential which will not be realised for five or 10 years. These are people who could afford to pay the outgoings but could not afford, because of the slow development of their earnings, to raise the mortgage. In many jobs, the starting

  1751
  salary is low but the earning potential increases rapidly.
  If the Government were prepared to introduce a scheme whereby they guaranteed that portion of the money required for deposit and solicitors' fees, and so on, they would thereby expand the building industry or at least stimulate it as it should be. The Minister for Local Government and Development has knowledge of the scheme, and I hope he will tell us whether the Government are prepared to consider putting it into effect. I believe that it would not cost the Government a great deal of money because in the event of there being a defaulting in the purchase of the house the Government would have a lien on the property to the extent of the difference between the mortgage of the building society and the amount guaranteed.
  One of our greatest difficulties in producing houses at an economic cost which people can afford lies largely in the incompetent and badly-organised building industry. I do not say that there are not efficient firms but, as a whole, the industry still lives in the early part of the century. Far too many firms have not got the technological means to do the job. Far too many have not got the capital with which to do the job. When we hear of bankruptcies in the building industry, we do not blame the Government. One of the greatest factors in the creation of bankruptcies in the industry has been the amount firms have been having to pay for their money from finance houses. Many firms are under-capitalised and, as soon as they overreach themselves by two inches, go into bankruptcy.
  In the last Government, I served at the Ministry of Public Building and Works. I recall that the Minister of the time asked the building industry whether, if selective employment tax was removed—and it averaged £125 on ordinary houses—it would be prepared to knock that amount off the price. The industry would not do so then, and it will not do so now. If the Minister were to ask the building industry why it is not reducing the price pro rata with the reduction in selective employment tax, he would be doing a duty to the House.
  The Government are going to increase rents for council tenants, and the Tory Party believes that this is the right thing
  1752
  to do. The housing revenue account of a local authority has to be balanced each year, and if one takes into account the sort of charges levied on it one realises that a substantial number of council tenants are not receiving subsidies but are actually paying subsidies to the rest of the community. The sooner the Tory Party gets away from its bitter hatred of council house tenants, the better.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: This debate, as the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) reminded us, is about the design of Government policy. That design on the whole has not been stated by the Government. After almost a year of Tory Government we still have no authoritative statement of policy. We have the Secretary of State's statement of last November but he will not mind my saying that it was couched deliberately in the most vague and nebulous form. The Government have been in office for 11 months, and they have been negotiating with the local authorities for at least four or five months, but still they refuse to publish any White Paper giving details of their proposals.
  Since the Government have had these detailed discussions and I believe they ended some time ago, there can be only one explanation for this deafening silence, and it is that the Government are anxious that the effects of their policies over rents and rates should not become known before the local elections are over. The jigsaw can now be put together. The design of Government policy is becoming clear.
  The most remarkable thing about the speeches of hon. Members opposite is that not one mentioned the increase in the rate burden which Conservative council after Conservative council has imposed on ratepayers this year.
  Mr. Tebbit: Not Waltham Forest.
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Epping has already made eight speeches in this debate, a remarkable achievement upon which I congratulate him, but I cannot allow him to make another in the middle of my speech.
  There is no doubt that the Government's policy is that rates will rise; they have already gone through the roof, and

  1753
  rents will do the same thing. Under the proposals of the Government tenants will be forced to pay fantastic increases in weekly rents, or, alternatively, join the growing army of people who have to submit themselves to a means test. A means test as a way of relieving poverty is one thing, and something which is justifiable, but a means test which applies to a large proportion of council tenants means that we have ended the concept of council housing as a social service which has been the basis of all Government policy in this country over the last 50 years.
  Mr. Ronald Brown Mr. Ronald Brown rose—
  Mr. Howell: I hope my hon. Friend will excuse me but I have tried to condense a two-hour speech into half an hour and I find it very difficult.
  Such a policy, which is to be imposed upon us, is certainly not in the tenants' interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) said, it is not in the interests of the country as a whole. If there is one thing that is certain as a result of a dramatic rise in rents and rates, it is that it will lead to applications for further dramatic wage increases. This policy will be grossly inflationary and will certainly multiply the burdens on taxpayer and ratepayer alike. That is the charge we make today.
  There can be no doubt that the ratepayer has had very good value for money from the last Labour Government. The Minister for Local Government kindly gave the figures on 28th April last. I will tell the House of the increase in rate poundage, according to the Minister's figures. In 1965–66, 10·4 per cent; in 1966–67, 9·5 per cent.; in 1967–68, 0·6 per cent.; in 1968–69, 1·8 per cent.; in 1969–70, 3 per cent.; in 1970–71, 5·3 per cent. That represents a successful policy of stability for the ratepayer. This year the increase in the rate poundage is 14 per cent. as a result of Government policies. By their policy on rates the Government have delivered a bloody nose to the ratepayers.
  As every Minister knows, anyone who is trying to keep down the rates faces the dilemma of providing good services and making sure that the local government employees—the teachers, policemen,
  1754
  nurses, road men, water men and sewerage men—are not subsidising the ratepayer in their wages. The Labour Government tried to deal with this dilemma, first, by their prices and incomes policy. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may poke fun at the prices and incomes policy, but the figures I have given show that it succeeded in keeping down the rates. The abolition of the policy has proved disastrous to the ratepayers and the tenants. We were trying to achieve a fair deal for the worker in local government while at the same time expanding the local authority social services.
  Secondly, the Labour Government dramatically increased the aid given by central Government to local government. This was done in two ways, first by giving a subsidy equivalent to a 5d. rate every year—this has now reached 1s. 8d. in the £—and, secondly, by increasing the amount of Government help to local authorities by 1 per cent. each year. At the end of our five years in office the amount of financial help to local government was increased from 54 to 57 per cent. with a corresponding decrease in the burden on the ratepayer.
  The Government propose not to give the equivalent of a 5d. additional rate this year but only a 2½d. rate. They are thus halving the help to the domestic ratepayer this year. Secondly, instead of increasing the proportion of Government assistance to local government by a further 1 per cent. they have cut it to ½ per cent. So, with the bloody nose they have already delivered they are giving two black eyes. The poor ratepayer cannot win with this Government. This has nothing to do with wages or inflation. It is the deliberate political design of the Government to impose greater burdens upon the ratepayer.
  As if a broken nose and two black eyes are not enough, the Government in their negotiations are screwing the local authorities down almost to the last penny. After they have got every penny they can out of individual services such as education and health, the Government say "For good measure, we will dock £10 million from local authority grants this year and £25 million next year." Almost every local authority association in the country—and they are all Tory-controlled—has told the Government that it is impossible to make

  1755
  savings of that sort in local government. It is adding to the bloody nose and the two black eyes a kick in the backside. That is the sum of the Tory measures.
  This is only half the story. This policy has not only forced up rates by 14 per cent. It has involved all the mean and miserable interruptions in services which Conservative council after Conservative council has been forced to in the present situation. I have noted down one or two in various parts of the country which show the effect of the other part of Conservative policy.
  I am told by the Labour group on the Teesside council:
  "Next year will see a complete suspension of all recreational capital spending; there will be practically no spending on community centres or child guidance clinics and a considerable proportion of our welfare expenditure is to he phased over a longer period. Tories sent a deputation to see the Secretary of State for the Environment but had to be content with civil servants and were turned down. They asked for a further meeting but Mr. Walker intimated that no useful purpose would be served by such a meeting."
  If that is how the Secretary of State treats his friends, how does he treat his opponents?
  A similar situation has been reported to me from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In regard to the next year's estimates four residential homes for the elderly, three mental health hostels and one day nursery, due to start next year, have been cut out of the programme. The swimming baths have been deleted from the programme, and £50,000 of the cleansing department's original estimate for public conveniences also has been deleted. One can go on quoting similar examples—
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I am a little confused. I think the hon. Gentleman is now dealing with capital expenditure and not rate support grant. Is that so?
  Mr. Howell: We are talking about the whole range of local government finance. We are talking about the effect of the Government's policies in both capital and revenue terms. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have not done your homework."] I have done my homework. I must say this to the Secretary of State, whom I welcome back after an
  1756
  interval of four hours absence from the debate—
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The hon. Gentleman was not here himself for a good deal of the time.
  Mr. Howell: Yes, I have been here most of the time.
  I come to another example of the Government's policy. I have had a note from Southampton where the effects have been very severe. Southampton decided to make its cuts in services in the field of revenue. In Southampton, I am told, there will be no maintenance of roads and footpaths and lighting and no road-sweeping. The city engineer at Southampton has calculated that in view of what the Tory council has done to the maintenance budget next year, if matters go on at the present rate the money available will be enough to repair only one stretch of road in the town once in every 40 years. This is the other side of the picture.
  We cannot let Waltham Forest get away with it—
  Mr. Tebbit: What happened to its rates?
  Mr. Howell: I will tell the House why the hon. Gentleman is able to make that interjection. At Waltham Forest—can meanness go any further than this?—the daily charge for day nurseries has been increased by the council from 11s. 6d. to 28s. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]. Who on earth can afford to put children in a day nursery at Waltham Forest?
  Mr. Tebbit: That is not the reason why the council has been able to hold its rates steady. It is good management. It contrasts with the position at the other end of my constituency, where in Harlow the rate has been increased because the Socialists have put up the allowance of the chairman of the council to £3,425 a year, which is more than hon. Gentlemen opposite get.
  Mr. Howell: I shall continue with Waltham Forest, because it is a very good example of the meanness of which I complain. It has saved the paltry sum of £1,000 by cutting out the extra nourishment service to the sick at home.

  1757
  It has saved £1,880, or a third of a penny rate, by cutting holidays for old and disabled people. Presumably in order to encourage vandalism in the borough—and if the hon. Member for Epping is anything to go by, obviously there are a great many vandals trotting round the borough—it has withdrawn attendants from all children's playgrounds and public lavatories, and my information is that that has had the effect that one would imagine.
  Mr. Tebbit: They have been replaced by a mobile patrol.
  Mr. Howell: That is the effect which the policies of the Government have had upon rates and ratepayers. There can be no doubt that the charge that the burden on every ratepayer in the country has gone up by the design of this Government has been more than substantiated in the debate.
  I now turn to rents. This is a very interesting subject, and we all listened with great attention for anything that the right hon. Gentleman had to tell us. He had nothing to say of any importance. We know about the charade of consultations going on with the local authorities. We listened to the principles which the right hon. Gentleman enunciated today. We know that there will be a dramatic rise in the rents that municipal tenants will have to pay.
  The first thing to say about the fair rent principle and the formula that the Government are proposing is that because there will be a rigid formula and a fair rent, whatever that is, the subsidy which will be given in future will have no effect upon the rents which most municipal tenants have to pay. They will not be helped by the subsidy. A fair rent will be determined, and a tenant will have to pay it unless he qualifies, on the poverty line, for a rent rebate. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is the most revolutionary change that has occurred.
  When we ask ourselves what is a fair rent, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that we are unable to compare like with like. Under the present fair rent system for private tenants, any individual ten-
  1758
  ant can contest the rent decided by his landlord. He can say that there are reasons why his rent should not be as high as others in the neghbourhood. But no municipal tenant will have that privilege.
  I have a great many examples from all over the country of fair rents which have been decided by rent assessment panels. If this is the basis on which fair rents are to be determined, it will mean astronomical rents for the ordinary municipal tenant.
  The treasurer of Hemel Hempstead, Mr. Aughton, recently delivered an excellent paper to the Rating and Valuation Institute. In it he says that at the moment rent tribunals are assessing fair rents at 11 times gross values. The G.L.C. assumes twice the gross value. He says he believes that, allowing for the 5 per cent, inflationary effect on the fair rent procedures which the Government intend to accept, the fair rent will be three times the gross rateable value. That is a fantastic increase which will mean a fantastic surplus in the housing revenue accounts of most local authorities. We want to know what will happen to that surplus. We have not heard a word about it. Does it mean that the municipal tenant is expected to subsidise the rent allowance in the private sector or to subsidise the ratepayer generally? We are entitled to an explanation. We have not had one yet.
  1 now come to what I believe to be some of the Government's detailed proposals. We got to know a bit about the picture which is emerging not least because of an excellent article which appeared in the Liverpool Daily Post on 3rd February, 1971. I understand that the Government propose—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, because we want to know where we stand—that a fair rent will be determined, but not by the local authority; neither will the nature of the rent rebate scheme. Out of the window will go that concept of Lord Redcliffe-Maud and what Tories have said since time immemorial about freedom for local authorities to determine their own affairs.
  Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you persuade the hon. Gentleman to address you, because it is difficult to hear him if he must address the Liberal Party Chief Whip?
  Mr. Howell: I am glad to record that you, Mr. Speaker, were showing an intelligent interest in my remarks, which is more than I can say for some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I want to come to what I believe to be the nature of the Government's proposals. Once a fair rent has been decided, they will progressively reduce subsidies by £20 a year at least and they are to take the tenant up to the fair rent by increasing his annual rent by not less than £26 a year—10s. a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) probably has some later information. He says that the rise will be about 15s. a week. My information is that it will be 10s. a week.
  Just imagine the picture for the average municipal tenant living in a relatively new house now. He faces the prospect of successive rises in his rent over the next six to eight years, apart from rises due to inflation, wage costs and so on, which will mean an eventual increase of possibly £3 to £4 a week.
  I understand that the Government will be putting into the housing revenue fund a new rebate scheme to which hundreds of thousands more people will have to apply. It will be costly to administer. I am told that at the end of the day the Government will probably come along and say: "If what you have to pay out in administering your housing departments and the rebate scheme exceeds what you get in"—in most cases it will be the other way round—"we shall give you a new deficiency subsidy of 90 per cent. a year to start, reducing to 75 per cent. a year." That will be an additional 25 per cent. burden for local authorities in future. That is the prospect before most municipal tenants.
  I am told that the Government will adopt the same kind of formula for the rebate schemes. The relief of poverty ought not to be the exclusive business of municipal tenants through the housing revenue account. The relief of poverty for people who cannot afford municipal houses and high rents ought to be an obligation accepted not by the ratepayer but by the taxpayer, because it is the nation's business. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen ask what our Policy is. It is to make the nation accept the responsibility for looking after the worse-off members of our society.
  1760
  A lot has been said about the owner-occupier. We have heard it suggested that more council houses should be sold. When we deal with this Government on these matters we are dealing with the economics of cloud-cuckoo-land. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in an answer the other day—it was an interesting answer—made it clear that the average price of a council house sold by the Greater London Council was between £3,050 and £4,600 and that the average cost of providing a new house to replace it was between £4,500 and £6,400. In other words, the ratepayers and the taxpayers cannot win. Every time the Government succeed in selling a council house which should be there for someone with a housing need, it costs 50 per cent. more than they receive to build another one to replace it for someone on the housing list.
  I turn now to the general housing programme. I do not want to say too much about this because of time, but the dramatic drop in the building of local authority houses can be traced from the moment that most councils went over to Conservative control—and they were doing exactly what right hon. Gentlemen opposite asked them to do.
  We all know the speeches of the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Very good."]—I suppose they were, since they got the effect which he hoped for—when he said that there were too many 'Tory authorities trying to be Socialist and trying to build too many council houses. In another dramatic speech to the Westminster Forum he actually said:
  "We shall curb the building of local authority houses."
  Mr. Peter Walker Mr. Peter Walker indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howell: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I was in the House when it was put to him in the middle of a debate, and he never denied it. I have the HANSARD here. If he would like me to take time from the Minister who is to reply I can read him chapter and verse.
  One cannot solve the problem by a dramatic extension in owner-occupation. To get a £4,500 mortgage in London, one must be earning £34 a week, and the average industrial wage is £22. On that sort of figure, it has been calculated that

  1761
  82 per cent. of the wage earners who are not in council houses have no hope of qualifying for a mortgage.
  I warmly welcome what the Minister said today, and I hope that it has a significant effect. However, I doubt whether it will be as significant as he thinks. Obviously, people cannot save for six months if they are having to pay dramatically high rents to private landlords, as most of them are in London and other large cities. It has taken the right hon. Gentleman a long time to produce this advance—
  Mr. Peter Walker: It took the Labour Party six years.
  Mr. Wiliam Ross: Be quiet.
  Mr. Howell: It took the right hon. Gentleman a long time. But, shining through every word which the right hon. Gentleman uttered today, was the fact of his great disappointment that he has not been able to do anything with the building societies over the current high interest charges for most owner-occupiers.
  I took down the words of the Minister when he told us their dilemma—whether they would give more mortgages, or a greater proportion of mortgages, to enable more people to be owner-occupiers, of whether they would use their existing fund to bring down interest charges. We can all remember the cry which used to go up in debate after debate about the imposition on the owner-occupier. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is surrender the interests of existing owner-occupiers. The Bank Rate has come down twice; yet the mortgage rate has not come down at all.
  What every owner-occupier wants to know is why it is that when the Bank Rate goes up the mortgage rate goes up the next day, but when there have been two reductions in Bank Rate there has been no reduction in mortgage rate—
  Mr. Walker: The Labour Party put the rates up.
  Mr. Howell: But it was the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, in election broadcast after election broadcast, who said that this was a disgraceful cost of living which they would reduce. The right hon. Gentleman has sold the pre-
  1762
  sent mortgage holders down the river in his negotiations with the building societies just as he has sold the ratepayers and the municipal tenants down the river.
  This debate has revealed a massive indictment of this Government and their housing policies. [Interruption.] I will spell it out for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly for the Secretary of State for the Environment. They stand idle when the interests of mortgage holders demand that they take action to get mortgages down; they have added to the burdens of ratepayers by reducing the help the Government have given to domestic ratepayers in the last five years, and their policies towards local authority housing will be disastrous for both the municipal tenant and the economy of the country. The case for the Motion has been overwhelmingly made out.
  Mr. Walker: I must say that the hon. Gentleman is looking very happy about it.
  Mr. Howell: I always adopt a cheerful attitude in the face of ignorance. I am certain that the case which we have made out today will be sustained at the polls next week.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, (Mr. Denis Howell) can always be guaranteed to entertain the House, and today he managed to do that and keep in order at the same time, though he did not mention a word about his party's policy [Interruption]. I do not know what hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining about. He chose this day on which to expound these matters, but not a word about his party's policy did he put forward. Nor did he say a word of appreciation for the exciting news about mortgage arrangements which my right hon. Friend announced. Only grave disappointment did he show for the improved housing figures. Perhaps he did not hear them. I will repeat them later.
  The Motion speaks of the increase in
  "the burdens of the domestic ratepayer."
  The House should realise who it was who humped that increased burden on to the back of the domestic ratepayer. There

  1763
  can be no doubt that it was the last Labour Government and the inflationary spiral for which their last months have become famous.
  It seemed from the speech of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that he was arguing that inflation is due to Government policy except when a Labour Government are in office. Then, I suppose, it is something to do with the gnomes of Zurich or the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
  On 10th December last year this House approved the Rate Support (Increase) Order and an increase in the taxpayer's contribution to the ratepayer. The House gave its approval to the increase on information contained in House of Commons Paper No. 173. Since the rate support grant had been fixed two years previously by the Labour Government, prices, costs and remuneration in local government had increased in the year November, 1969, to November, 1970, by £254 million, of which £178 million was in respect of pay awards.
  It cannot be denied that such increases stemmed from the closing policies of the Labour Government. How astounding was that figure one can see when one appreciates that in previous years those increases had not been more than £9 million—but £178 million in pay awards was a magnificent run up to a General Election. It was £178 million of local government money handed out by the Labour Government.
  It may be easier to comprehend if I express it in terms per household. The domestic ratepayer pays about one-half the rates, while commercial and industrial property pays the rest. That one year's increase due to pay awards is the equivalent of £5·50 per household. It would have been £7·50 per household in respect of the whole increase, taking goods and services into account. That is the measure of the increased burden which the Labour Gvernment's policies imposed on the ratepaying householder.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: Has not about one-third of these wage awards gone to the Government in income tax and should there not have been increased help from the Government as a result?
  Mr. Page: There has been an increase of the contribution by the taxpayer to the ratepayer, and I will come to that. Despite the generous gestures of the Labour Government with the ratepayers' money, a number of local authorities kept their rates down by using money that had been saved in previous years. The Rating and Valuation Association in a recent statement said:
  "It is also clear that the extent to which balances had been accumulated is a very important factor in comparing one authority with another. Obviously many councils had scraped the bottom of the barrel last year in their desperate efforts to stave off the ever-growing inflationary pressures. This year saw the reckoning."
  In that recent statement it was pointed out that the total rates bill will be some £1,860 million, and a further £117 million will come from the Government to help householders with their rates.
  I look a little closely at the contributions from the Government towards the rates to help householders meet the rate bill. The Labour Government's help to each household in its last year of office, on an average—I will express it again per household—was £4 10s. per year in 1969–70. In our first year it rose to £6 5s. per household per year. This year it will be £7. Next year it will be £8 5s., nearly double the help which the Labour Government saw fit to give. It is suggested that we are increasing the burdens on the ratepayer. This is nonsense when one looks at the figures.
  I am mentioning now what we know as the domestic element in rates. The domestic element was devised to get the anticipated increase in rates down to about half for the domestic ratepayer in a certain time. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, speaking for the Labour Government in another place when he introduced this on 28th April, 1966, said that they were not looking beyond the first three years. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), introducing it in the House on 14th June, 1966, gave the figures of the domestic element for three years and he said:
  "Clearly, this could not go on for ever. It can be done only for a period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1275.]
  That was the Labour Government's policy. We extended that help to the domestic ratepayer for the whole period of the rate support grant, increasing it every year.

  1765
  In the rate support grant we have made provision for a very substantial increase—and consequently an increase of Government financial help to the ratepayer—in those local government services which directly affect the neighbourhood, the quality of home life and the pleasure in the surroundings of one's home—in short, the environment.
  The right hon. Member for Grimsby made the extraordinary statement that rate increases will not produce better services. Let me mention just one or two of the kind of services which are being increased over the next years. For slum clearance, house improvements, clean air, public health matters, and so on, £24 million more a year at June, 1970, prices will be spent for the next two years than the Labour Government agreed to in its last year of office. On town and country planning, £4 million more a year will be spent than the Labour Government was spending in its last year. For parks, the figure is £5½million more, for refuse it is £15 million, for libraries it is £5½ million, and for sewerage it is £23 million.
  These are the current expenses. I am not dealing with capital figures such as the hon. Member for Smallheath started explaining to the House. Those would be much greater figures. They are very formidable figures and nearly 12s. in every £ of the figures which I have quoted will come from the taxpayer to help the ratepayer. I believe that this is what the public expect from a Government—that they ensure a decent environment for our homes. The Opposition, in criticising us for rate expenditure on that sort of local government service, misjudge the mood, and indeed the demands, of the public.
  Because of good management, while making provision for those services we can say that never has the rate-paying householder had to find out of his own pocket a smaller proportion of the rate bill, nor has he ever had such a large contribution from the Exchequer. Therefore, what complete misrepresentations are the words of the Motion on the subject of rates.
  Whatever may be the terms of the Motion, either about rates or about rents, what we are debating is the cost of a home and the effect of Government policy upon it. How the costs soared under the
  1766
  Labour Government—the purchase price of a house up 50 per cent., mortgage payments doubled, council rents 65 per cent. up. That is the sort of record which the Opposition have to put before the public.
  Whether the householder is an owner-occupier or a tenant, he has no cause to regret the replacement of a Labour Government by a Conservative Government last June. Indeed, he has every reason to rejoice. For example, if he is an owner-occupier, thanks to a Conservative Government he no longer has the fear that if he has to move and sell his house he will have to part with part of the proceeds. Thank heavens the Land Commission levy has gone. We have killed that tax on moving home. It was the previous Government's invention for increasing the price of houses and increasing the cases of hardship. Would the Opposition, if they were the Government again, which heaven forbid, bring back the Land Commission and the land levy? [Interruption.] I want an answer to that question that I have asked before I answer any interruptions. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) were in a future Government, which heaven forbid, there would be public ownership of land.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Did the Minister say that where an owner-occupier who owned only one house moved house tax was taken arising from the increase in the value of those premises?
  Mr. Page: He would be relieved of that under capital gains tax and he had to pay the betterment levy if there was an increase in value. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If a householder, instead of being an owner-occupier, is the tenant of a private landlord he also has cause to reioice in the change of Government last June. The great majority of such tenants—
  Mr. Crosland: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what he said just now, that when one owner-occupied house changed hands the proceeds of a sale were subject to betterment levy? On reflection, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that?
  Mr. Page: Yes, of course, if there was a development value in the house, as in many cases there was. The whole point of the levy was that there should be a tax

  1767
  on that. [Interruption.] I know that the Land Commission Act was the most complicated Act ever passed through the House, but after all it was the Opposition, when they were in government, who passed that Act through the House, and they had to amend it a good many times. I am right in what I told the House just now.
  The great majority of private tenants are in the older houses, and a substantial number of them are now benefiting from the energetic campaign of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on improvements grants. It was true that the Labour Government, with Conservative Opposition support, increased the possible amounts of the grants, but having set the figures the Labour Government sat back and, with an air of take it or leave it, left the grants alone. There was no substantial increase in the improvement grants while they were in office.
  The improvement policy of the Conservative Government has none of the languid, lethargic indifference which is such a charming characteristic of the right hon. Member for Grimsby. First, we have had a campaign on improvements in 50 cities, and we are starting on a campaign in the next 50 cities. We have mounted this campaign in 100 cities, headed personally by Ministers. Nearly half as many more homes are benefiting as a result—significantly, not just from the installation of the essentials like the inside 100, the hot water system and so on, but from the far more extensive modernisation of homes by the discretionary grants. It is the bigger grants which have shot up as a result of the campaign.
  If the householder is not an owner-occupier or a private tenant but is a council tenant, he too has causeto be happy that there was a change of Government last June. He can now buy his home if he wishes, and he can do so at 20 per cent. less than the market value without having to put down any deposit. He finds himself in a much better position under the present Government than under the last.
  There is nothing very extraordinary about any of the points I have put forward—getting rid of an unpopular tax, campaigning to persuade people to take advantage of a grant, letting people buy the houses in which they live. Why, then,
  1768
  did the Labour Government fail to carry out these very reasonable policies? They were so obsessed with the hatred of certain sections of the public—developers, speculators, or that great bogeyman of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East, the landlord, that they completely failed to observe how many ordinary citizens were getting hurt in the course of their private feud against a few whom they suspected.
  Like existing householders, potential householders too can rejoice. They can buy without having to contribute in higher prices to the vendor's liability under the levy. They will soon be able to buy without having to pay some £60 towards the builder's S.E.T., thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And when they become owner-occupiers they need not feel guilty about the assistance which they receive from tax allowance. This matter has been raised several times in the debate. The figures are that the mortgagor owner-occupier last year got tax relief of an average £47 50p. The council tenant received from subsidy and rate fund contribution an average of £48. So there is really level pegging between the two.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave today some very valuable assurances from the building societies, and some interesting points were raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Loughlin). We are still talking with the building societies, and we shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's points. The present arrangement means that a young couple can save while they are engaged and have the home ready for when they are married.
  Mr. George Cunningham: We are having some difficulty in isolating the small grain of truth that there sometimes is in what the hon. Gentleman says. He gave figures for the relative subsidy to council tenants and owner-occupiers, which are in straight conflict with the figures given by his Department last July. Do the figures he has just given take account of the fact that council tenants are ratepayers too and, therefore, contributes to the subsidy that they may or may not get through the rates?
  Mr. Page: Of course the owner-occupier is a ratepayer too. We very much appreciate that there are many

  1769
  families who cannot even think of affording to purchase their own home—and this point was rightly put by the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Fisher)—or who need some help from more experienced persons in realising how they can best use their small resources in obtaining for themselves a home. There are some—perhaps too many—living in areas of special housing stress. Early in the life of the Government my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called upon local authorities to establish housing aid centres to give advice and help upon housing problems. These are proving immensely helpful in enabling people to make the best of their resources in providing themselves with a home. Last month my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction followed this un in a new way with the London boroughs in which there are special housing stress areas, making practical proposals to tackle the problem.
  In terms of better housing and human happiness, great advances can be made by these comparatively simple actions, in co-operation between the central Government and local government, to reach and help directly those families with housing problems. Again, I do not claim any brilliant and novel policy here, but I do claim that we are doing it energetically and with better results than the last Government achieved.
  We have acted more energetically than the last Government did in securing a revival of housing building. But that was not difficult. The Labour Government gave up the struggle. They threw in the sponge and retired from the housing ring. They did nothing to prevent the tragic collapse of the housing programme during their term of office. After only six months of Conservative Government the growth started, as from January, 1971. My right hon. Friend gave the figures today. Starts in the first quarter of this year were up by 20½ per cent. on those of the first quarter of 1970. I have calculated that this means 11,900 more houses in the first quarter this year than last year. That is a rate of 47,600 more houses per year. The hon. Member for Salford, East was so disappointed about this that he had to blame it on the good weather.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman has so far spent 25 minutes on his speech and has not yet come to the point of the removal of the council house subsidy and the decontrol of private landlords' tenants. I repeat the question I put to his right hon. Friend. Will he give the House and the country an assurance that hundreds of thousands of tenants in both sectors will not have their rents at least doubled?
  Mr. Page: Of course and many more tenants are going to have proper rebates. Our policy is fair rents and fair rebates. The hon. Gentleman did not like the figures of housing because his Government said all the time that it could not be done. These figures show that it could be done. The Labour Government's run-down of house building has been turned into a start-up and an acceleration.
  There are two major matters of policy which have resulted in this start-up and acceleration. First, there was the kicking out of the Land Commission and the putting of local authorities into their rightful place as encouragers of development. Secondly, there was the removal of the monetary ceiling on local authority lending for house purchase. These two measures are a complete reversal of the two biggest mistakes the previous Government made in housing.
  That Government demoted democratic local government from development powers and deprived democratic local government of the power to help its own citizens provide their own homes. We intend in our future policies to—
  Mr. Dan Jones: —double the rents.
  Mr. Page: —see that our policies are rational and compassionate. They will be rational because they will end the wasteful and indiscriminate distribution of subsidy, irrespective of need, and compassionate because for the first time our policies will ensure that no tenant is prevented from obtaining decent, unfurnished accommodation because of his inability to pay the rent. I am sure that our policies will have a tremendous impact on what has seemed up to now the solid and intractable problem of the homeless. Our future policy is based on fair rents and fair rebates.

  1771
  The right hon. Member for Grimsby used a most fantastic argument against his own Government's fair rents. He said they must apply to some private tenants, not to others, and never to council tenants.
  Mr. Crosland Mr. Crosland indicated dissent.
  Mr. Page: If they are fair rents for one tenant, why are they not fair rents for another? The right hon. Member complained that the proposed rebates would cover the majority of council tenants. Those were his words. Subsidies at present cover council tenants but they are not concentrated upon those in need.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) wanted to apply this subsidy to bricks and mortar, even as far as the owner-occupier. Is this the sort of policy the Labour Government want to put forward? We will ensure that the subsidy goes to the tenant in need. Housing associations and housing societies, the Cinderellas of the Labour Government's housing policy, will play their full part in our programme. We are bringing sense and sensitivity into housing.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 260.

  Division No. 357.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Curran, Charles

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Havers, Michael

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Astor, John

  Dean, Paul

  Hay, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Awdry, Daniel

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dixon, Piers

  Hicks, Robert

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Balniel, Lord

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hiley, Joseph

  Batsford, Brian

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bell, Ronald

  Dykes, Hugh

  Holland, Philip

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Eden, Sir John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hordern, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hornby, Richard

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Biffen, John

  Emery, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fair, John

  Hunt, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Fell, Anthony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Body, Richard

  Fidler, Michael

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jessel, Toby

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bray, Ronald

  Foster, Sir John

  Jopling, Michael

  Brewis, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fox, Marcus

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fry, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bryan, Paul

  Galbraith, Hn, T. G.

  Kilfedder James

  Buchanan-Smith, A lick(Angus, N&M)

  Gardner, Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Buck, Antony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Bullus Sir Eric

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burden, F. A.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Godtocr, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Carlisle, Mark

  Goodhew, Victor

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Channon, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Knox, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Cower, Raymond

  Lambton, Antony

  Chataway, Rt, Hn. Christopher

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Lane, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gray, Hamish

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Green, Alan

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rusholiffe)

  Grieve, Percy

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Clegg, Walter

  Grylls, Michael

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gummer, Selwyn

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Gurden, Harold

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

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Loveridge, John

  Cordle, John

  Hall-Davie, A. G. F.

  Luce, R. N.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McAddien, Sir Stephen

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  MacArthur, Ian

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Pounder, Rafton

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

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Temple, John M.

  Madel, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Maginnis, John E.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Ralson, Timothy

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

  Marten, Neil

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mather, Carol

  Redmond, Robert

  Tilney, John

  Maude, Angus

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, S.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Trew, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mills, Stratton(Belfast, N.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Roberts Michael (Cardiff, N)

  Waddington, David

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

  Roberts, Wy (conway)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Moate, Roger

  Rodgers, Sir John (sevenoaks)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Molyneaux, James

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Money, Ernie

  Rost, Peter

  Walters, Denis

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Monro, Hector

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sharples, Richard

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

  Well, John (Maidstone)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Simeons, Charles

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mudd, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Murton, Oscar

  Skest, T. H. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Neave, Airey

  Soref, Harold

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Speed, Keith

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Spence, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Nott, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sproat, lain

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stainton, Keith

  Younger, Hn. George

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Osborn, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M,

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foot, Michael

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cronin, John

  Ford, Ben

  Ashley, Jack

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Forrester, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Freeson, Reginald

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dalyell, Tam

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Garrett, W. E.

  Barnes, Michael

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)

  Ginsburg, David

  Beaney, Alan

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gordon walkar, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Deakins, Eric

  Griffiths Eddie (Brightside)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Delargy H J.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Booth, Albert

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bradley, Tom

  Doig, Peter

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire E.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Harper, Joseph

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

  Driberg Tom

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hattersley, Roy

  Cant, R. B.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carter, Ray(Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Horam, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Ellis, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  English, Michael

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Evans, Fred

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Cohen, Stanley

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Hunter, Adam

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (EdgeHill)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Janner, Greville

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Sillars, James

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  Mendelson, John

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Millan, Bruce

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Small, William

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  John, Brynmor

  Molloy, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Jones, Dan (Burnjey)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Judd, Frank

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  O'Malley, Brian

  Kelley, Richard

  Oram, Bert

  Swain, Thomas

  Kerr, Russell

  Orbach, Maurice

  Taverne, Dick

  Kinnock, Neil

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Lambie, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Latham, Arthur

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Tinn, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pardoe, John

  Tomney, Frank

  Leonard, Dick

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Torney, Tom

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lipton, Marcus

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Prentice, Rt. Hn Reg.

  Wallace, George

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Prescott, John

  Watkins, David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Weitzman, David

  McBride, Neil

  Probert, Arthur

  Wellbeloved, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rankin, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mackie, John

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Whitlock, William

  Makintosh, John P.

  Richard, Ivor

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Roper, John

  Woof, Robert

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

  Rose, Paul B.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William(Kilmarnock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marquand, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Marsden, F.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 259.

  Division No. 358.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cockeram, Eric

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cooke, Robert

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Coombs, Derek

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Braine, Bernard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Astor, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Cordle, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brewis, John

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Costain, A. P.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Balniel, Lord

  Bryan, Paul

  Curran, Charles

  Batsford, Brian

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Baxter, William

  Buck, Antony

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Dean, Paul

  Bell, Ronald

  Burden, F. A.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Benyon, W.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Channon, Paul

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Biffen, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Drayson, G. B.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Blaker, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Clark William (Surrey, E.)

  Eden, Sir John

  Body, Richard

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carlshalton)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Redmond, Robert

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Emery, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Farr, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Fell, Anthony

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fidler, Michael

  Knox, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lambton, Antony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lane, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rost, Peter

  Foster, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fowler, Norman

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

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fox, Marcus

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Loveridge, John

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

  Fry, Peter

  Luce, R. N.

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. C.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Simeons, Charles

  Gardner, Edward

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Soref, Harold

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McMaster, Stanley

  Speed, Keith

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Spence, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Sproat, lain

  Goodhew, Victor

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stainton, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gower, Raymond

  Madel, David

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gray, Hamish

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stokes, John

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Grieve, Percy

  Mather, Carol

  Sutcliffe, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gummmer, Selwyn

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gurden, Harold

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Stratten (Belfast, N.)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple, John M.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

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

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Moate, Roger

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Molyneaux, James

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Havers, Michael

  Money, Ernie

  Tilney, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hay, John

  Monro, Hector

  Trew, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hicks, Robert

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mudd, David

  Vickers, Dame Joan

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

  Murton, Oscar

  Waddington, David

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Holland, Philip

  Neave, Airey

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hordern, Peter

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Walters, Dennis

  Hornby, Richard

  Nott, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Onslow, Cranley

  Warren, Kenneth

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hunt, John

  Osborn, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Worsley, Marcus

  Jopling, Michael

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Younger, Hn. George

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Kilfedder, James

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Kimball, Marcus

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ashley, Jack

  Barnett, Joel

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Beaney, Alan

  Allen, Scholefield

  Atkinson, Norman

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnes, Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orme, Stanley

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oswald, Thomas

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Booth, Albert

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Bradley, Tom

  Horam, John

  Pardoe, John

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pentland, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Janner, Greville

  Prescott, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecoles)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rankin, John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Coleman, Donald

  John Brynmor

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Roper, John

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kelley, Richard

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kerr, Russell

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kinnock, Neil

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lambie, David

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lawson, George

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sillars, James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silverman, Julius

  Deakins, Eric

  Leonard, Dick

  Skinner, Dennis

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Small, William

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Doig, Peter

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dorman, J. D.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Driberg, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Strang, Gavin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McBride, Neil

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Eadie, Alex

  McCartney, Hugh

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Edleman, Maurice

  McElhone, Frank

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Taverne, Dick

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackie, John

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

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  English, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Evans, Fred

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Tinn, James

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Tomney, Frank

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B 'ham, Lady wood)

  Matron, Simon (Bootle)

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Foley, Maurice

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Eric G.

  Foot, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ford, Ben

  Marsden, F.

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

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Walker, Harotd (Doncaster)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wallace, George

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Watkins, David

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mendelson, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Millan, Bruce

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Gourlay, Harry

  Molloy, William

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Moyle, Roland

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Woof, Robert

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Mr. John Golding and

  Hardy, Peter

  Oram, Bert

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Harper, Joseph

  Orbach, Maurice

  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the abolition of the wasteful Land Commission and betterment levy, the halving of selective employment tax, which will help to curb the rise in the cost of housing, the increasing sale of council houses to tenants, and the substantial extra
  1782
  provision in the rate support grant for improvements to the environment; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the steps it is taking to extend home ownership and house improvement, and on its policy which is designed to concentrate support on areas of stress and people in need.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to Agriculture may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

  NORTHERN PENNINES RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD (DISSOLUTION)
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move,
  That the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board (Dissolution) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 224) be withdrawn.
  Since they took office last June, the present Government have taken a number of measures with which we have disagreed profoundly, but for sheer, shortsighted parsimony this Order takes some beating. Let us examine the background. There has been an acceptance for some decades that the upland areas justify special attention. It was in recognition of this that the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts were passed in the late 1940s under the aegis of the greatest Minister of Agriculture this country has even seen, the late Tom Williams, and that the hill sheep, hill cow and beef cow subsidies are paid.
  But it has also been recognised that something more than production grants is needed. Communications and amenities in these upland areas are generally poor. Holdings are not uniformly viable. Different bodies are trying to carry out related functions without cohesion. Nor is the potential of these areas for recreation fully exploited for the benefit of the inhabitants.
  The men who farm in these difficult regions are sturdy and independent. They work hard for a small return. The Chairman of the Board, Mr. Cowen, has estimated that the average income of the hill farmer in the North Pennines is £500 a year. However, these men make an important contribution to the nation. Without them our uplands would drift into neglect and decay, and no hon. Member will disagree with that.
  It was in an effort to help these areas that my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) made provi-
  1784
  sion for rural development boards in his 1967 Act. It was an imaginative proposal which won support and approval from a wide body of opinion in all political parties.
  When that Measure was in Committee it received little opposition. There were debates on its Clauses and Amendments to them, but no Divisions took place. The only outright opponent to rural development boards was the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). Although the hon. Gentleman is not in his place now, I must, in fairness to him, make this point. Of all the Opposition hon. Members on that Committee, he was the only one to voice total opposition to it.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) spoke for the official Conservative Opposition on 11th July, 1969, from the Front Bench and offered the Board the good wishes of the Tory Party. He said:
  "It has a job to do and we should give every encouragement and opportunity to do it."
  The hon. Gentleman, who is now the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, added:
  "We wish the Board well and hope that it has a fair wind to do its important job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 1771.]
  The hon. Member for Westmorland is well on his way to becoming the Vicar of Bray of his party.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: Read the last paragraph.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman wished the Board well—
  Mr. Jopling: Read on.
  Mr. Hughes: I will not delay the House by reading the whole of his speech on that occasion.
  Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman is cheating.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of cheating. If he says that, then I tell him, as he sits in his place tonight, that he is himself a cheat. He makes that charge against me, but he was the one who turned completely round over this.
  Mr. Jopling: Read the rest of the quotation.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be a weathercock, blowing with every wind. Let people beware when that spokesman of the Conservative Party wishes them a fair wind. It is likely to be a hurricane that blows them out of existence.
  In another place, speaking for the Conservative Government, Lord St. Aldwyn, said in July 1970 that the Government intended to continue the Northern Pennines Board which, he said:
  "has widespread local support and which we regard as a worthwhile experiment in finding solutions to the problems of the hill areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th July, 1970; c. 729.]
  It was against this background that the Board was set up and commenced its work. I take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to Mr. Tom Cowen, a Chairman of outstanding ability, and his colleagues for the way in which they set about their work and what they have accomplished in such a short time.
  Before the last General Election the Conservatives said that if elected they would abolish the Welsh Rural Development Board, and they gave their reason; namely, that it did not have public support in the Mid-Wales region. It is a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not follow this doctrine in relation to their other policies in Wales which are unpopular there now.
  "Acceptability" was the criterion which the Government laid down, and in July the Minister said that he was not abolishing the Pennines Board, although the Mid-Wales was abolished, because it had wide support in the area. Then we had the most extraordinary volte face.
  On 18th January last, in a White Paper on the proposed changes in the work of his Ministry, the Minister said that the Board could
  "… not be justified under the Government's philosophy and the experiment of the Board would therefore be terminated."
  That was an extraordinary change even for this Government.
  What happened between July 1970 and January 1971? Did the views of the farmers of the North Pennines change? Did the views of the National Farmers' Union change? Was there a change in the views of any other public body
  1786
  the area which had supported the Board? On the contrary, public support for the Board remained strong. The six branches of the N.F.U. in the region have opposed the abolition. The President of the N.F.U. has described the Government's action as a tragedy. In a letter sent to hon. Members in the last few days, the N.F.U. has made clear its opposition to the Order and it has given reasons for its opposition.
  What consultation did the Minister have with local interests to ascertain their views? He visited the area, but that was after he announced his turn-about. When he was there he was told that farmers generally opposed the abolition. I should be grateful if he would confirm or deny that. The vox populi, as they heard it, was paramount in Wales, but it did not count six months later in the north of England.
  But by January the Minister had been deep in thought. By then he had discovered philosophical reasons for abolishing the Board. Perhaps it would be unfair to him to suggest that the philosophical revelation came to him in a flash on the road to Damascus. He has been pondering on it for weeks. The dominant theme of his speeches was that the farmers must stand on their own feet. I read with great interest his Farmers Club speech. It is easier for a farmer to stand on his own feet in the area in which the Minister farms than it is in Mid-Wales and the North Pennines. With respect, in East Anglia he has a much smoother ride.
  The philosophical argument was not thought of when the Bill was before the House or when the Order was debated. The hon. Member for Westmorland did not mention it, nor did the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). The position of the Leader of the House in this matter is very interesting. He well appreciates the difficulties of North Pennines farmers. Very few people know it better than he does. As a sincere person, he realises the full merits of the Board. I am sorry that he collapsed before the philosophical arguments of the Minister of Agriculture.
  Much has been made of the land transfer provisions. If ever a mountain was made of a molehill it was on this

  1787
  matter. A number of other authorities, the Forestry Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, for example, have far wider powers than those vested in the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board, let alone the local authorities. But to what extent were the powers under Section 49 used by the Board and to what effect? It is only fair that the House should look at this.
  During the Board's short life there were nearly 500 land transfers in the region. In 233 cases the Board was able, through advice and guidance, to encourage sensible amalgamations. In one case only, out of over 500, the Board refused consent because the farm in question was badly fragmented and incapable of being farmed efficiently and economically. The Board bought them and resold to other farms, helping them to become more viable.
  If local opinion had felt that the Northern Pennines Board had acted arbitrarily or wrongly, we would certainly have heard about it and there would not have been this opposition in the area to the Minister's action. If the opinion had been that Section 49 dealing with the transfers had been used arbitrarily, unwisely and imprudently against the public interest, there would have been a hullabaloo about it.
  The question of cost effectiveness has been raised in some quarters. The Minister hinted on one occasion that the money had not been well spent by the Board. I believe this to be totally unfair and unworthy. The Board's administrative costs in its first financial year were under £50,000. Its expenditure was about half that. The costs cover the whole year, whereas the grants began only last June when Treasury approval was obtained, so that like is not being compared with like. Again, the administrative costs cover all the Board's activities and not just Section 47 work.
  A board of this kind is not judged solely in terms of cost-effectiveness. For example, how is a figure to be put on the advice it gave on land sales and farm structure or on the influence it had in planning circles or, indeed—and most important of all—on the way it helped to hold agricultural morale in a difficult area? This cannot be judged in terms of cost-effectiveness.
  1788
  The Minister's decision cannot be justified on grounds of non-acceptability, on grounds of philosophy, or on grounds of cost-effectiveness. This was a great opportunity to raise standards in the hill areas, to co-ordinate agriculture, forestry and tourism, and to help the people there to help themselves.
  I will give but one example out of many. The Board gave a lead to local authorities to subsidise and keep in being essential bus services. The bus services in Swaledale, Weardale and Westmorland, in the constituency of the Parliamentary Private Secretary, have been saved from closure largely because the Board was there to help local authorities. Many excellent schemes, not expensive in themselves, but very important to the area, will now fall as a result of the Government's action. It is true that a Board of this kind in an area like the North Pennines or Mid-Wales, in small ways and by the prudent expenditure of small sums, can do things which are important to those who live there in difficult conditions.
  Then there are the Common Market implications. We do not know what will happen to our hill farming policies if we enter the European Economic Community. We are told to wait and see, and we must be content for the time being with that. Rural development boards could have been an important factor. The Government seem determined to throw out of the window every policy that might, to say the least, have been a good bargaining counter in our negotiations to enter the Common Market.
  On 18th January the Minister said that he would be making other proposals for hills. The House should be told tonight what those other proposals are. The Government said the same thing in July when they abandoned the Mid-Wales Board. What about these plans? What are they to be?
  I am sad and angry about the Order. The Board would have helped many people in an area which badly needs help. A small number of well-to-do reactionary Tories have taken the opportunity to show their teeth. So the area, with its substantial population, will continue to decline.
  There are debits and credits to every Minister's record. I know that I had my debits, and there were many things

  1789
  I should like to have done during my tenure of office at the Ministry that I was unable to do. No doubt I made mistakes, but I am glad that I had nothing of the nature of this Order on my conscience, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  10.40. p.m.
  Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on abolishing the Board. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) talks about the Board's area as though it were all moorlands and uplands, but some of it is among the best agricultural land in the country. Nearly half the six northern counties are included in the area.
  Mr. Fred Peart: Why did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman oppose it?
  Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: I did not know that it included half my constituency. I was referred to maps in the Library which I could not make head or tail of, but I realised then that it included part of the plain of York, including Fountains Abbey.
  How much land did the Board nationalise? Six hundred acres in my division were saved from being nationalised by the General Election. Farm land was hawked to other farmers who could not afford to buy it and to others who could not afford to rent it.
  Mr. Peart: Will the hon and gallant Gentleman declare the amount of land that was nationalised in the area?
  Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Of course I will. From memory, I think 400 acres were nationalised. Six hundred acres were being nationalised when the General Election took place. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how much land has been denationalised.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us where he was when the land was nationalised, and if he was in the House whether he completely misunderstood what was happening?
  Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: It was nationalised since the Board was set up.
  I want to know whether the land has been denationalised. This was simply
  1790
  a Socialist measure to get hold of land for the State, and in order to get it they preserved one or two bus services at Swaledale. This was selling our birthright for a mess of pottage. I could not be more delighted that the Board has been done away with, and I hope that the land will have been denationalised at the earliest possible moment.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. David Clark: My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) made the point quite plainly that we on this side are beginning to get used to the volte face of the Government, but many of us find this measure very disagreeable because the Minister seems to have changed his mind completely within a period of six months.
  There has been reference to what the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said in speaking for the then Opposition in July, 1969. The hon. Gentleman has said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey did not quote his full speech, and referred to his qualification at the end of that speech. I intend to read out that qualification. He said that the Board had an important job to do, and welcomed it. He then said:
  "If after a number of years we feel that it is not doing the job but is merely becoming another bureaucratic extravagance, we reserve the right then to wind it up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 1771.]
  I would not disagree, but this is not after a period of years. The Government wish to wind it up 18 months after it was set up. I believe that the Government have been entirely unreasonable about it, and the hon. Member for Westmorland has not stayed true to his friends in this case. At the time, his point was sensible, but 18 months are not "a number of years".
  It seems to me that the only argument that the hon. Gentleman can use for the winding up of the Board is that it has not got local support. In his speech in July, 1969, that was the cornerstone of his reason for supporting the Bill. But local support has not dissipated. It is there still.
  I take Westmorland, for example, since that is where the Board has its headquarters. The Westmorland Gazette, which is not exactly sympathetic to this

  1791
  side of the House, comments on the decision:
  "More regrettable than the money cuts to the Westmorland hill farmer, perhaps, was the political decision to wind up the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board."
  That sums up the situation in a nut-shell.
  Then we have the chairman of the South Westmorland National Farmers Union. He said that he regretted that the Board was being wound up, and he added:
  "I felt it was a vehicle to boost the economy of the hills."
  I am sure that that is a sentiment felt by the majority of farmers in the Pennine area.
  Representing a Pennine constituency, though it is not within the ambit of the Board, I am very disappointed to see the Board being wound up. We saw it as a great experiment. We felt that, if it worked, it might be extended to other areas. Unfortunately, it has not had time to show whether it can work.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The hon. Gentleman has quoted from the Westmorland Gazette. Perhaps he will also quote from the Cumberland and Westmorland Herald, another newspaper circulating in the area, especially in my part of the area.
  Mr. Clark: I gather that the paper—
  Mr. Peart: As the Member for a Cumberland constituency, I hope that my hon. Friend will also quote the views of the Cumberland Farmers Union on this point.
  Mr. Clark: I quoted the views of the Westmorland Gazette because it is published in Kendal and has a greater circulation in the Appleby and Pennine area than—
  Mr. Jopling: Rubbish.
  Mr. Clark: The point is irrelevant in any event, because I was quoting merely the opinion of the Westmorland Gazette.
  I think that we all agree that the fortunes of hill farmers have not been very happy in the last decade or so. There is a great deal of fear in hill farming circles about entry into the Common Market. Under Article 92, on which our hill farmers have their hopes, there seems to be some social subsidy for them, but
  1792
  I doubt whether there is any production subsidy. I feel that rural development boards may be the only hope of salvation for our hill farmers if we go into the Common Market.
  We need hill farmers for many reasons, not least to keep our hillsides and upland areas cultivated, to keep them suitable for our recreation, and to keep them looking beautiful. All too often, agriculture, forestry, tourism and conservation are conflicting aspects of upland life, and they have to be married. In the rural development boards, we saw the possibility of co-ordinating these often conflicting interests.
  In the Yorkshire dales there has been a great deal of controversy about afforestation, especially in the Langstrothdale area. There was much discussion in the Press and in farming and conservationist circles about this. The Board gave its blessing to this scheme and the conservationists were worried about it. In other cases the Board had refused its blessing. I understand that when the Rural Development Board goes there will be no planning authority that can stop the planting of trees.
  This means that any private forestry group can cover the whole of the Yorkshire dales with conifers and we can do nothing about it. I do not use this as an argument against afforestation because, I believe that we need more of it, but it has to be balanced, with deciduous trees and conifers.
  There is a strong case for retaining the Board, and the Government are acting for purely personal and political motives. They have not got an economic or social case. They are letting all the hard work that has gone on go by the board. They are letting the hill farmers down; they have disappointed them dreadfully. When we go into the Common Market the hill farmers will be sacrificed
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I should declare an interest. I agree wholeheartedly with one matter that the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) referred to, and that was his tribute to Mr. Tom Cowen, the Chairman of the Board that is to go out of existence. He is a personal friend of mine and if anyone could have made a success of this he could.
  Hon. Members: "He never had a chance."
  Mr. Thomas: I take the point that he never had a chance, because he was given the wrong vehicle with which to travel along the road.
  There is agreement that the objectives of the Board are desirable.
  Before I entered this House I told Mr. Cowen that I did not believe that the organisation was one which could succeed. He was faced with an almost insoluble problem. The right hon. Member for Anglesey is a lawyer and I am not. He quickly brushed over the legal points regarding land transfer powers under the Act.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member's party supported them.
  Mr. Thomas: I did not support them, in this House or before I entered it. There is a substantial difference between the situation in Wales to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and the situation in the Pennines. It will be found that owner-occupiers in Wales are in the majority. People strongly object to the fact that under the land transfer powers of the Board, it became automatic that every piece of land in the Board's area was faced with a legal charge upon it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) who referred to nationalisation, and who was greeted with hostility from the other side of the House, was not so far away from the truth as was thought. It is not pleasant for a man who owns his land to find himself in the situation that his freehold is eroded, perhaps inadvertently, by the imposition of a legal charge put upon it by statute. That is a substantial point which should be met in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] We hear cries of "Rubbish" on this point because it is regarded as an inconvenient debating point, but it is a point of substance.
  I have paid tribute to Mr. Cowen. The chairman-designate of the Welsh Rural Development Board was also known to me personally and I have a high regard for him. I am happy to pay a tribute to all the great work he has done in bringing about agricultural cooperation in Wales, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom. But it is an
  1794
  unfortunate fact that he was accurately quoted—I was at the meeting when he said it—as saying that in fact the rural development board was a nail in the coffin of the private ownership of land.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: Of landowners.
  Mr. Thomas: I have the advantage over the hon. Gentleman in that I was there; he was not.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the hon. Gentleman accept from me that Dr. Phillips showed me the notes of the speech he made; they were written in Welsh, although the speech was delivered in English. The Welsh word there used did not mean private landowner, but the basis of landlordism, which is a very different thing.
  Mr. Thomas: I was present at the meeting and it was immensely hostile. Dr. Phillips was heckled and badgered. People in the area disliked these proposals though not the objectives of the Board. The fact is that they deeply resented these charges. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were whipped up."] They were not brainwashed; it was entirely spontaneous. I was at the heart of the matter, at grass roots level, as opposed to the level of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The initial reaction of both unions was to give this a welcome. It was the reaction in the grass roots which brought about a change of reaction in Wales.
  I will deal with the difference in character of land ownership in the North of England and that in Wales. The reason the hostility never arose in the North of England can be put down simply to the fact to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) referred. It was felt by the vast majority of tenant farmers in the North of England that the Board might possibly be a bulwark between them and landlordism. But this is where I felt that Mr. Cowan and the Board were up against a great difficulty.
  Contrary to what was suggested a few moments ago, the first people who would have been through the doors of the Board's offices—and I am not critical of them—would be the factors, the land agents of the great estates, many of whom have had to carry men who through the decline in farm incomes have not been

  1795
  able to get out. Although I do not claim that all landlords and landowners are tender-hearted, there is good will in the countryside, and they would have liked to have created a humanitarian organisation for the structure of farming. This difference in character is why the vox populi spoke in one way in Wales and in another way in the Pennines.
  On afforestation, I would say to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) who spoke about balance—what a consummation devoutly to be wished. There is not a man who has looked into forrestry in any depth who has not said, "Cannot we have more deciduous trees? I live in an area where the sad, dark, green conifers surround us, but when we look into the economics, we find that until the urban population is prepared to pay the tremendous cost of the type of planting we would all like, there is little hope of getting this suggestion off the ground.
  Finally, I address myself to my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I know that I shall have the support of both sides of the House when I say to him, "I will support you tonight, Sir, but I hope you will tell us what your policies are for the future to deal with the problems which could not have been satisfactorily solved by the rural development boards as set up by the previous Government."
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I do not wish to follow the theme pursued by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. John Stradling Thomas), but I wish to comment upon his description of the restrictions upon the disposition of land as being a land charge. He admitted that he was not a lawyer, but had he understood those legislative provisions he would have realised that there was nothing in the Act of 1967 or in the powers of the Board which forbad a person to sell. All they meant was that the Rural Development Board was given the power of first option and, if it exercised that option, it would have to buy that land for the price that had been agreed in a free, arms-length negotiation between the owner of the land and the would-be purchaser. That is not a legal charge by any stretch of the imagination. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had not bothered him-
  1796
  self with legal matters. Byron described a person:
  "with just enough of learning to misquote".
  That is what happens when laymen with the best will in the world start analysing statutory provisions.
  Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The hon. Gentleman used two terms, "legal charges" and "land charges". I did not say "land charges" because, not being a lawyer, I did not want to get into technicalities. Possibly some who come from the highways and byways are better lawyers than some legal gentlemen. Where a man is to purchase land and his solicitor finds that there are restrictions on the transfer, surely it is the duty of that solicitor to warn the purchaser that there is a charge which erodes the freehold, otherwise he would not be doing his duty? If that technically is not a legal charge in the opinion of legal gentlemen here—
  Mr. Morgan: I do not think there is any question of a solicitor discovering the presence of this restriction, because he would know that the land was included within the area of a rural development board and, as a competent practitioner, would well know that the restriction was a restriction on a would-be purchaser. This is the point the hon. Gentleman has not grasped. It was a restriction perhaps upon a farmer who already owned 500 acres and wished to buy another 30 or 40 acres in addition. It was not a restriction upon the seller because he would have his sale at his price in any event.
  Mr. John Stradling Thomas: It would be registered with the county council in which the land was situated.
  Mr. Morgan: The point has been made and I do not want to pursue it further.
  Although I am a Cambrian and not a Cumbrian Member, I intervene briefly as one who, a year ago, was forecast by his opponents as about to have the letters "R.D.B." written across his political tombstone. The fact that I managed to survive and treble my majority in the General Election is a tribute to the integrity of the electors of Cardigan. At the same time, it is the clearest evidence of the miserable failure of a ruthless campaign dedicated to foment and exploit the inevitable initial suspicions which exist in relation to something as new and radical as the Board. The fate of the

  1797
  Welsh Rural Development Board is not directly material to the issue before us tonight, but I refer to it because it is the only rural development board which it was attempted to establish in the United Kingdom other than the Board which is the subject of the Order. That Board was established under the same Act of Parliament. It had the same purpose and it had exactly and to the letter the same powers as the Board we are discussing. But totally different reasons were given for its extinction.
  When a person makes and gives two totally different sets of excuses for the same acts, society has serious reservations about that person's credibility. The same is exactly true of a Government. When the Welsh Rural Development Board Order was presented to the House on 19th January, 1970, none of the Conservative Opposition spokesmen had any reservations at all about its powers and purpose. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), now Minister of State, Welsh Office, said:
  "It was only when Mid-Wales farmers from all five counties rose up in their wrath that we in the Conservative Party asked the Government to cancel the Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1970; Vol. 794, c. 187.]
  The Conservative Party at that time had no fundamental objection to the Board as such. As my right hon. Friend has said, how could it? No vote had been registered against it in the Standing Committee which had considered the Act, as a Bill, for many weeks and which had scrutinised it in very great detail. No argument had been proposed against it, except that of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), and he was listened to by his colleagues with that benign tolerance which they reserve for West County eccentricity.
  When the Minister of Agriculture made the announcement to the House on 18th January last that the Northern Pennines Board would be extinguished, wholly different reasons were put forward by him. He said:
  "As to the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board, I could not see any sense in keeping in operation a board whose compulsory powers of land acquisition I was not prepared to support. To spend £67,000 as it did last year on providing about £4,000 worth of actual material help to the area did not seem a very good return for money."
  1798
  Those were his two reasons—that the powers of the Board were intolerable and that the financial excesses of the Board were also wholly unacceptable. Let us look at those reasons. The powers of the Board were nothing compared with the powers of local authorities in this country; certainly they did not compare in magnitude with the powers of other statutory boards or the absolute power of compulsory purchase which was given to the Highlands and Islands Development Board by Section 4 of the 1965 Act. The point is that if the powers were excessive, surely the Government had the power to legislate. Surely they would be able to cull from this situation the unwholesome powers, leaving only the residuum which they were prepared to tolerate.
  There is then the argument about the financial excesses. They stopped the process at a stage when the Board was still promoting this great new venture. Obviously, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know, when promoting a venture one has first to prime the pump. The first movement of finances will be in expenses long before one is able to direct one's mind to anything else. There were inevitable initial expenses here which could not be avoided.
  It was unworthy of the Minister to pretend that this was evidence of gross irresponsibility on the part of the members of the Board. In the next sentence to that which I have just read—it may well be thought that this detracts absolutely from the indictment which he had levelled against them of financial irresponsibility—the Minister said:
  "At the same time, I pay tribute to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board for the work that they did."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 519.]
  Is he maintaining that the eight other members of the Board were responsible for the expenditure of the £67,000?
  We may well ask: why was the Northern Pennines Board ambushed? It was slain not because the Government feared that it would fail, but because they suspected that it would succeed. It was destroyed because the barbarous backwoodsmen of the Tory Party demanded its sacrifice on the crusty altar of their reaction.
  The object of my short intervention this evening is not so much to castigate

  1799
  the Government for the meanness with which they have perpetrated this extinction—a meanness which is gilded with hypocrisy—but rather to hazard a guess at the consequences in future as a result of their squalid little act.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) has already made a passing reference to Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. If we enter Europe, if the Government are determined to abrogate the sovereignty of Britain, to spurn the democracy of this country, to shanghai Britain into a European alliance, which three citizens out of every four in Britain utterly condemn, then it may be that our farmers and rural dwellers will find that a rural development board is invaluable to the protection of their interests.
  Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome says:
  "Except where otherwise provided for in this Treaty any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it adversely affects trade between Member States, be deemed to be incompatible with the Common Market."
  In fairness, I must say that there are a number of exceptions listed, but they are all within a narrow compass. In practice, those exceptions are only possible within the area of European rural development boards. Such boards exist in the Mezzogiorno and the Massif Centrale—areas of acute poverty. Rural development boards may be possible in Britain under the Treaty of Rome, but at the moment there is nothing to suggest that the condition of our hill areas, poor though they are, can match the poverty of those areas which have already been designated rural development board areas in Europe.
  This Order represents a decision of monumental unwisdom by the Tory Party. It is an act of small, mean-minded, doctrine-infested men. It is a policy which is foisted on the Pennines and the country wholly contrary to the statesmanlike advice tendered by the National Farmers Union. By their submission to powerful, loud-mouthed un-progressiveness in their party, the Government have deprived small farmers of a range of assistance which could have succoured many to viability. They have denuded rural communities of a variety of benefits which would have
  1800
  given them hope and sustenance. At the same time they have cheated agriculture of the longer term advantage of a farseeing experiment of bountiful possibilities.
  11.16 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has just delivered a speech of extravagant language, not least in the fears which he tried to express—and perhaps to influence people—about entry to the Common Market. I would not want to follow him into those fears tonight.
  This is an important debate on a controversial decision of mine. I appreciate that there are strong views on both sides of the House about that decision, which was part of the review of functions which I carried out last summer and last autumn. In so far as it was a review of functions, it was part of the implementation of a pledge which my party gave during the election campaign, that we would examine in each Department the role of Government and that, wherever possible and wherever we thought it right, we would reduce the rôle of Government and Government expenditure and create a society which stood on its own feet.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) asked me what amount of land was held by the Board on dissolution. Its assets at the moment include two farms of 95 and 65 acres respectively. These are to be resold as soon as possible and arrangements which will benefit farm structure in the locality are already well advanced in one of them.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) said that, out of 500 applications so far for consent to land transfer, 233 had resulted in useful amalgamations. We have no evidence to show that those amalgamations would not or could not have taken place irrespective of the Board. The assumption is that the vast majority would have taken place in any case. On the question of afforestation in the area, there is no restriction in the normal way on the planting of trees; but in the national parks there is a voluntary agreement under the joint auspices of the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Commission under which joint surveys of

  1801
  areas are carried out by the Park Planing Authority and the Forestry Commission.
  People proposing to plant are urged to discuss their proposals with the Park Planning Authority. This agreement, given good will on both sides for its operation, offers a constructive alternative to the statutory powers of control formerly held by the R.D.B., and I see no need at present for further measures.
  I wish to give the reasons why I wound up the Board. The Board had wide powers of purchase. Consent was required for all land sales that took place in its area and I confess that I was not happy that Government money should be used to purchase land in this way. After all, the Government were committed to saving the taxpayers' money.
  The intervention powers of the Board were such that it could take over a farm which was put on the market and for which it had refused consent for its sale. When the Chairman of the Board came to see me, he was quite prepared to give up those particular powers, though he wanted to retain the voluntary powers of acquisition.
  When I examined the voluntary powers of acquisition, I asked the Chairman and the Board whether they were likely to use those powers, and the answer was that often when small owners of land, and not so small owners in some cases, wanted to sell, they found it difficult to sell and approached the Board to see if it wanted to buy.
  I then asked if it was the Board's intention to hold this land, and the answer was that it would get rid of the land if it could, but that if it could not, it would hold it and let it to neighbouring tenants, occupiers or owners for them to farm. It seemed to me that we were in grave danger, if this were allowed to go on, of creating a situation in which dotted all over the Pennines we could have small areas of land owned by the Board and paid for by general Government expenditure.
  I felt, too, that we were creating a situation in which the Board was becoming the buyer of last resort; that people were looking to the Board more and more to get them out of their difficulties rather
  1802
  than looking to themselves. These were some of the reasons why I felt that I could not support the continuation of the purchase of land.
  The problem here was that as soon as one took away from the Board the right to purchase land, one could not, at the same time, take away its statutory duty to consent to all land sales in the area. It would, therefore, have required fresh or amending legislation merely to keep the Board in operation if I were not prepared, as I was not, to keep it with its powers of purchase. I therefore had no powers to prevent these transactions from taking place.
  I have been asked about the consultation that took place. I saw the Chairman of the Board on at least two occasions and I saw one or two other members of the Board either with the Chairman or at other times. In the course of my review I consulted officials of the National Farmers Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Country Landowners Association.
  I join hon. Members on both sides in saying that Mr. Cowen, the Chairman, and Mr. Brocklebank, the Vice-Chairman, have, during this time, won a wide measure of support and I have absolutely no criticism to make of their work or of the way in which they have run the Board. The Board was drawn from within an area which understood the agricultural and rural problems better than some other rural bodies, and that is certainly an improvement on some statutory bodies.
  I then looked at the administrative costs of the Board. The figures which I gave when I announced the winding up of the Board were only estimates, and I now have the true administrative costs. For the year ending 31st March, 1971, they were £51,000, and grants during that year were £5,353, with another £30,000 in the pipeline, to give the figures as nearly as I can. In that period, land purchases amounted to £8,840.
  Having taken from the Board the powers of purchase which I was not prepared for it to continue to use, I had to see whether the administrative costs would justify the work which it was likely to do. Having looked at the matter carefully, and recognising that there was a need for some organisation, some vehicle,

  1803
  with which to help the hill areas, I decided that this was not the right organisation. That is why, having looked at the Board's powers and the costs of administering it, I decided that I could no longer go on supporting it.
  What are we doing for the hills? Since the Government came to office last June, we have made two announcements of great importance to the hill farmers. In the autumn, we announced an increase in the hill sheep subsidy and in the general beef subsidy. This March, we announced the biggest single increase for lamb end price and another very large increase in beef price. I am prepared to go into any hill area in the country and put before the farmers there the question whether they prefer to stand on their own feet
  with a higher end price. I have had plenty of opportunities to do so, and the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) may go with me if he wishes.
  I have been to the Pennines and put this to the farmers. I am convinced that in these areas we have some able, independent and sturdy people who do not want a situation in which they are constantly supported by boards and subsidies and that what they require is a good end price for their product. What Government policy for the first time for many years offers them is a fair return for their efforts and it is in that spirit that I ask the House not to withdraw the Order.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 124.

  Division No. 359.]

  AYES

  [11.29 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Barnes, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pendry, Tom

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  John, Brynmor

  Pentland, Norman

  Booth, Albert

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

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

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Judd, Frank

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Donald

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  McBride, Nell

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Mackie, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Deakins, Eric

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marion, Simon (Bootle)

  Strang, Gavin

  Edelman, Maurice

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taverne, Dick

  Evans, Fred

  Marquand, David

  Tinn, James

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)

  Marsden, F.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Foley, Maurice

  Millan, Bruoe

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Freeson, Reginald

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Garrett, w. E.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Weitzman, David

  Golding, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hamling, William

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Malley, Brian

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orme, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hattersley, Roy

  Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Channon, Paul

  Fell, Anthony

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Awdry, Daniel

  Coombs, Derek

  Fowler, Norman

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fox, Marcus

  Benyon, W.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, John

  Curran, Charles

  Gorst, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dean, Paul

  Cower, Raymond

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Green, Alan

  Boscawen, Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Burden, F. A.

  Emery, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eyre, Reginald

  Havers, Michael

  Hawkins, Paul

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speed, Keith

  Hay, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spence, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Homsby-Smith. Rt. Hn.Dame Patricia

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)

  Moate, Roger

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Molyneaux, James

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hunt, John

  Money, Ernle

  Tebbit, Norman

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tilney, John

  Jessel, Toby

  More, Jasper

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Trew, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Kilfedder, James

  Nott, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Kinsey, J, R,

  Osborn, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kirk, Peter

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Waddington, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Knox, David

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Fancis

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Raison, Timothy

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Loveridge, John

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Luce, R, N.

  Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Madel, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mather, Carol

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Maude, Angus

  Simeons, Charles

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,

  Soref, Harold

  LANGLEY ESTATE, MIDDLETON
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  11.38 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am most grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the problems which are experienced in connection with the Langley Estate in my constituency. I do not imply that Langley is a problem area, to be looked on with condescension or pity. People there would not thank anyone for that, and, indeed, it would be a travesty of the truth. It is just that the people living on the Langley Estate have been placed in a situation which presents many difficulties. Other hon. Members who have similar housing estates in their constituencies may well find in their own experience an echo of the matters which I have to relate.
  Langley is an overspill housing estate built in Middleton by the Manchester Corporation. It is one of a number of housing estates which have been planned to cope with the city's enormous slum clearance programme. Apart from some private development which need not concern us here and which is not significant in totality, the estate comprises, in the main, 4,800 corporation dwellings accommodating between 16,000 and 17,000 people. There are one main and three
  1806
  sub-shopping centres, and letting commenced in 1953.
  That is a prosaic description of the Langley Estate. The overspill concept must have seemed at the outset a quite reasonable solution to Manchester's problem. Theoretically, it was straightforward enough, but in practice it has led to entirely novel problems. I believe that these problems have been overlooked so far by the central Government.
  In actuality, Langley is a huge transit camp, which has not become fully integrated with Middleton. It elects councillors to the Middleton Council. It pays rents to Manchester. For many people coming from the slum and twilight areas of the old Manchester, finding the rent looms largest in their lives. This orientates them naturally to Manchester Corporation. They are Mancunians. Many still work in Manchester and, therefore, there are few pressures on them or their families to think in terms of being Middletonians.
  Langley is a huge transit camp because the system militates against it becoming a stable community. As children grow up and marry, their expectation is not to be able to live in the area in which they were brought up. The likelihood is that they will have to go to another part of Middleton or elsewhere. The house on which they may have their eye is required for another family on Manchester's long waiting list. As one clergyman on the estate has said to me, when

  1807
  he shakes hands with a young couple after he has married them, he is saying goodbye.
  I quite understand Manchester's point of view in such a case, but I still have to ask how a settled community can be expected to emerge in such conditions. There is no steady second and third generation build-up. The result is a constantly shifting society which tends not to generate many leaders.
  From this basic position there are other consequences which are unsatisfactory. Head teachers have complained that the schools in the district fail to show a rising level of achievement as each year goes by. Improvement is naturally what they would expect. They regard it as helpful to the sound development of a school that children should be coming to the same place that their parents attended. Equally, there is likely to be more interest on the part of parents in a school if it is one with which they themselves have had some direct contact. The absence of such interest is suspected to be one of the basic causes for the high level of truancy on the Langley Estate, and truancy is seen by many of the social workers as the pathway to delinquency.
  A tremendous amount of social work is required on the estate. It is provided not only by the officially appointed social workers but also by the nuns from the Assumption Convent. I have the highest admiration for the selfless work they do, in love and devotion, to help the people on the estate. Yet this is not enough, because head teachers, doctors, councillors and the police all find themselves involved in what is essentially social work. In ordinary circumstances a lot of this help would come from within the family or from close relatives, but arrangements on the estate militate against any such thing. Families are inevitably dispersed by the system.
  In the short time that I have been a Member of the House, I have been deeply disturbed by the number of cases in which elderly people who find it increasingly difficult to look after themselves are seeking to be near a son or daughter somewhere in Manchester, and yet, despite the Manchester Housing Department's best and often extremely sympathetic efforts, some transfers take a long time to achieve.
  1808
  This sort of situation will not improve whilst Langley remains, in effect, a transit area. As a family moves into Langley, the mother, dealing with her child, will find that inhibiting factors which she has normally called in aid have been left behind. Previously she may have kept her small son under control by threatening to tell granny, auntie or uncle about misbehaviour. This possibility is now removed and the community, being unsettled, offers no alternative restraints.
  The same can be said of delinquency and crime. It is no particular deterrent to a young person that his conduct may be reported in the pages of the Middleton Guardian. He is amongst strangers and Langley residents do not regard the Guardian as their paper. The resulting crime rate, although not high by national standards, is higher than for the rest of Middleton, and the local police relate this to the lack of stability in the community.
  In government and control Langley falls between Manchester and Middleton, and I do not believe that this split can be right. First, Langley is not being developed as an integral part of Middleton, and, second, Manchester is too remote to understand some of the day-to-day problems. Langley people come as Mancunians. Although certain services are provided by Middleton, everything to do with their house and home has to be taken up with Manchester. So what concerns them most, inevitably, orientates them towards Manchester. With new families arriving all the time, what prospect is there that Langley will ever become or see itself as part of Middleton?
  This situation provokes a reaction from the remainder of Middleton. They also see Langley as a separate entity and do not always look on the inhabitants of Langley too kindly. Langley gets accorded a certain reputation, fairly or unfairly, and maybe it assimilates with its reputation. There is nothing to draw people from other parts of Middleton to Langley, and a division therefore exists in the town, and this is unhealthy for the town.
  A tribute should be paid to the many people in civic life who have tried valiantly to break down this division, but I fear that the system is against them. The second aspect of dual control is that in many respects Manchester is cut off

  1809
  from Langley. People do not elect representatives to Manchester City Council. No one sitting in the Manchester Council Chamber has the sole purpose of looking after the interests of the people of Langley. Therefore, it falls to Middleton councillors, without the direct access to Manchester, to do their best to speak for their Langley electors at meetings, inevitably non-regular, with representatives of the Manchester City Council or Housing Committee. With the best will in the world, it is hard to remove an element of confrontation from such occasions and the psychology governing the meetings is all wrong.
  What sort of thing happens in practice on the Langley Estate? Let us take the matter of rent collection. It is Manchester's practice to collect rents fortnightly. For a long time the City Council has failed to recognise that there are many householders which have real difficulty in budgeting over a two-week period. Here is a human problem of which authority has taken no cognisance for a long time. The consequence is that assistance to these families has come from the Little Sisters of the Assumption, social workers, and even probation officers, who have gone round collecting rent money weekly, thus putting it out of spending reach until it is time for the rent man to call.
  I know that some people find it hard to believe that such a problem could exist, but the problem does exist. Belatedly now, Manchester is making a rent office available on the estate at which rents can be paid. This will only partially relieve the problem.
  There are also many people living at Langley who are entitled to social security payments of one sort or another. The offices to which they are sometimes required to go are now, through a process of rationalisation and reorganisation, spread far apart. The journey often requires two buses. This is a real handicap for mothers with small children and for the elderly. Unless we can get to grips with these everyday difficulties, how can we ever improve the quality of living for this minority of our citizens?
  My purpose in bringing these matters to the attention of the House is to illustrate as graphically as I can the kind of sociological problems which can occur on overspill estates, and which have
  1810
  occurred in full measure on the Langley Estate. In a Written Answer at the end of last year my hon. Friend said that he did not think that there was a need for an inquiry into such problems. I hope to be able to persuade him that both in scope and magnitude they most certainly merit investigation, and that such an investigation should take place before local government reorganisation.
  It is easy enough to state that the problems could be solved by the Middleton Borough Council taking over full responsibility for Langley. Indeed, they could, but this would overlook two essential points. First, the financial scale of such an operation would be entirely beyond Middleton's means. Second, Manchester still has a severe housing shortage, which it is trying its hardest to overcome.
  However, with local government reorganisation in the air a fresh possibility arises. Middleton with Langley will find itself undoubtedly in a new metropolitan district. Manchester will form a separate and neighbouring metropolitan district. Both will be related to the same metropolitan county. Amidst all this change there is bound to be some reallocation of assets. The opportunity should be taken to bring all local authority housing stock under the control of the metropolitan district in which it is geographically situated. There could be an agreement between the two metropolitan districts, the one containing Middleton and Langley and the other containing Manchester, that the former will have so many families each year for rehousing from the latter, but these people could be dispersed wherever suitable in the receiving metropolitan district and not just concentrated into one area, with the difficulties I have tried to outline. They would be fitting into more established areas throughout the metropolitan district, and Langley would have the opportunity gradually to acquire its own roots.
  I believe that this would be the best of all worlds. A unique opportunity to put such a plan into effect is at hand. Langley would then cease to think of itself, or be thought of, as in any way an under-privileged area. I await my hon. Friend's comments with interest. Middleton may be a place to the far north of here, but I hope that he will

  1811
  demonstrate that his Department understands our problems.
  11.53 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): The whole House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) has done us a service tonight by raising this extremely important matter about overspill. Having known him some 15 years, I am not at all surprised by his devotion to his constituency and his keen efforts to deal with the problems of his constituents by raising such matters.
  I well understand my hon. Friend's concern for the well-being of his constituents who live on the Langley Estate. I understand, too, his desire that in the reform of local government an opportunity should be taken to create a situation in which their local government services can, if possible, be improved. I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned for some time with the problems that arise for people living in overspill housing estates, and particularly with their relationship with the local authority in whose areas the estates have been sited.
  I certainly would not deny that difficulties can arise. It is true that a tenant in an overspill estate not owned by the council of the area in which it is situated is at a potential disadvantage as compared with the ordinary council tenant who can go to his own councillor, because the local councillor to whom he would normally go is not a member of the landlord authority. This was one of the factors in the mind of the then Minister when the Town Development Act, 1952 was passed.
  But not all overspill development falls within that Act. There are also the new towns and the many overspill estates built by housing authorities under their normal housing powers, of which the Langley Estate is one. It is one of a number where the houses have been built and are owned and managed by the Manchester Corporation outside the city. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) also represents one of them.
  I am sure that hon. Members will not wish to be over-critical of this form of development in principle. It has gone on for many years and has been of great help in providing relief for our overcrowded and hard-pressed larger towns.
  1812
  The basic problem with which we are concerned tonight is, in a sense, the same, whether the chosen method of meeting the housing problems of one of our larger cities is through the New Towns Act, the Town Development Act or, as in this case, the Housing Act. It is to create conditions in which people uprooted from familiar surroundings can make a new life in a new community to which they can quickly feel that they belong.
  It is not an easy matter. In a way, the special machinery of the new towns and the town expansion schemes makes solutions easier, though we know that there have been criticisms of lateness in the provision of social and recreational facilities in new towns. Whatever the machinery, it is essentially a matter of good will and co-operation between the authorities and the people who live on the estate.
  A sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee published a Report in 1967 on the Needs of New Communities. The point was made in it that in certain ways it was difficult to distinguish between the different types of new communities. It went on to say that the assessment of the social needs and the planning and provision of the necessary services and facilities are in many respects the same as those in new and expanding towns.
  The report also shows how such developments vary enormously in the range and quality of their community facilities. Some of the best certainly equal the new towns, while some of the worst are real social deserts. I imagine that my hon. Friend has seen this Report. If he has not, I will gladly send him a copy.
  I do not wish to try to put the Langley Estate into any particular category. I do not think that in this kind of problem it is right to try to set general standards or categories, because the right solutions will vary depending on the many different locations and circumstances of these so-called overspill estates.
  There is a great need for close and willing co-operation between the local authorities concerned. There will usually be three of them; the urban authority with the housing problem which builds and owns the houses, and the local and county councils in whose area the

  1813
  development is situated. In Langley, there is the Manchester Corporation, the provider and owner of the houses; there is Middleton Borough Council, which is responsible for local services; and there is the Lancashire County Council, which is the education authority. The Langley Estate is a very large one, developed by Manchester Corporation largely between 1952 and 1968 and with a population now of some 20,000—over one-third of the population of Middleton.
  In this kind of situation, it would be surprising if there were not problems, and my hon. Friend is right to say that there have been. I am sure that none of the authorities concerned would claim that the situation is perfect. But it is fair to say that they have done a good deal to provide for the social and recreational needs of the people living on the Langley Estate. There is a liaison committee, consisting of members of the Manchester Corporation and the Middleton Borough Council, which was set up to consider problems and complaints relating to the estate. There is close and continuous liaison at officer level.
  I believe that, through these arrangements, some provision has been made for second-generation families, the importance of which my hon. Friend was right to emphasise. I understand that Middleton is now satisfied with the arrangements which have been made for securing the allocation of tenancies to the children of families who have moved to Middleton from Manchester and who have grown to adulthood there. I am sure that that is a matter of crucial importance. It is never an easy matter, given the conflict of need which is bound to arise between the exporting and receiving areas. I hope that the arrangements agreed between the authorities in this case will secure a marked improvement. There is also a community centre and a health centre, following a detailed survey of the estate by the Lancashire County Council in the 1950s, and there are a number of other facilities, details of which I do not have time to give tonight.
  I give all this information not to deny that there are problems. There are. I do it to show that the authorities concerned have made and are making efforts to see that the people who live on the estate can feel part of the local com-
  1814
  munity and do not need to look backwards to Manchester. I accept that the success of these efforts may be limited so far, but I do not think that this is a situation where one can expect problems to be solved overnight. Perhaps one encouraging feature is that a resident of the estate has already been Mayor of Middleton.
  It is absolutely crucial that there should be the provision of a suitable range of social and recreational facilities, especially for young people. It is, I am sure, most important for fostering good behaviour.
  My hon. Friend chided me for saying in the Answer I gave him on 8th December, 1970, that I did not think that an inquiry into the special problems of overspill estates was necessary. Perhaps I could just expand a little on that. First, my hon. Friend mentioned rent collection. He says that the tenants would like to pay weekly, and I understand that. This is a question which has been studied. It has been said that the collection of rent fortnightly is economical and that where it has been introduced the evidence is that there has been no significant increase in arrears. I hope that will be true in Langley and that the new rent office will make a substantial difference in the way these matters are conducted on the estate.
  The Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at Birmingham University is engaged on the wider study of sociological problems. In 1967 it received a Government grant from the Social Science Research Council to enable a start to be made in a study of the planning of new communities, initially in three, Redditch, Tamworth, and Chelmsley Wood, a very large peripheral urban development by Birmingham, This was followed in 1968 by a further grant for a three-year research project entitled "The Planning Process and the Development of New Communities". I am sure that when it is complete the results will be of help in approaching the real problems we are discussing tonight.
  I was very interested in my hon. Friend's remarks about the effect which local government reorganisation will make in dealing with the problems he has described this evening. My hon. and radical as the Board. The fate of the

  1815
  Will have their attention drawn to what has been said tonight.
  As my hon. Friend knows, we consider that a metropolitan county structure is the most appropriate one for his area. We set out our proposals for the boundaries of the new metropolitan county and the metropolitan districts in a recent circular. Under those proposals the Borough of Middleton, Oldham County Borough and some of the surrounding urban districts would come together to form a new and powerful metropolitan district with a population of about 279,000.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this in itself will assist his constituents on the Langley Estate.
  Mr. Haselhurst: I ought to make it clear that Middleton has not committed itself to that particular metropolitan district. I was talking about a metropolitan district.
  Mr. Channon: I understand that. They have until 31st May to make any suggestions they have about the area. There will be a metropolitan district and that is the one suggested at the moment.
  The present structure of local government creates additional difficulties for councillors, officers and local people. The new authority we propose will have strong resources and will be responsible not only for the housing of the area and a wide range of local services but also for education and the personal social services. That will be of great help in dealing with some of the problems my hon. Friend has raised.
  I have certainly noted my hon. Friend's suggestions about the ownership of the Langley Estate and the other points he raised. There are many detailed matters which we shall discuss with the local authority associations before
  1816
  reaching conclusions. This question of the future of "out-county" estates, if I may use that description, is one such question to be considered. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are considering it and that I shall take full account of what he has said. I am sure he will understand in the circumstance why I cannot comment on the matter at this stage.
  I cannot go further than that tonight because discussions have not been concluded with local authority associations. This is a very difficult matter and it is one of the things which will have to be given careful study. What my hon. Friend has said will be carefully noted by all those who are responsible for the reform of local government.
  On his wider point about the extreme importance of considering the sociological problems of these overspill estates, there has been a certain amount of research and more is under way. I hope that the result of that research will show that the Government are keenly interested in the sort of problems my hon. Friend has in mind and in the welfare of his constituents, which he has been right to raise this evening.
  My hon. Friend has done a service in pointing out the importance of the problems involved in large overspill estates. I assure him that in considering problems in future my right hon. Friend will pay the closest attention to the matters my hon. Friend has raised. I hope that he and his constituents will feel that this debate has been worthwhile because this is an extremely important topic which the Government intend to take very seriously indeed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Neyland Technical College
  Neyland Technical College
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Careers Advisers
  Careers Advisers
  Sex Films and Courses
  Sex Films and Courses
  Local Maintenance Allowance
  Local Maintenance Allowance
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Seals, North Rona (Experimental Killings)
  Seals, North Rona (Experimental Killings)
  Richmond-on-Thames (Secondary Education)
  Richmond-on-Thames (Secondary Education)
  Medical Students (Grants)
  Medical Students (Grants)
  D.D.T. and Aldrin
  D.D.T. and Aldrin
  Careers Guidance Services
  Careers Guidance Services
  School Building Costs, Inner London
  School Building Costs, Inner London
  Waltham Forest (Capital Expenditure)
  Waltham Forest (Capital Expenditure)
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Portsmouth (Pre-school and Primary School Facilities)
  Portsmouth (Pre-school and Primary School Facilities)
  Neyland Technical College
  Neyland Technical College
  Teachers (In-service Training)
  Teachers (In-service Training)
  Business Schools (Students)
  Business Schools (Students)
  Primary Education (Resources and Teachers)
  Primary Education (Resources and Teachers)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Teachers (Quota)
  Teachers (Quota)
  West Riding
  West Riding
  Teachers (Above-Scale Payments)
  Teachers (Above-Scale Payments)
  Private and Direct Grant School Students (West Riding)
  Private and Direct Grant School Students (West Riding)
  Seals (Research)
  Seals (Research)
  Primary Schools, West Riding (Replacement or Rehabilitation)
  Primary Schools, West Riding (Replacement or Rehabilitation)
  Arts Council (Grants)
  Arts Council (Grants)
DEFENCE
  Royal Naval Stores Depôt, Coventry
  Royal Naval Stores Depôt, Coventry
  United States Military Aircraft (Expenditure)
  United States Military Aircraft (Expenditure)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Armed Forces (Commonwealth Citizens)
  Armed Forces (Commonwealth Citizens)
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Catering Facilities)
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Catering Facilities)
  Ceylon
  Ceylon
  Census
  Census
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Home Defence (Review)
  Home Defence (Review)
  Political Offences (Convictions)
  Political Offences (Convictions)
  Rate Defaulters (Imprisonment)
  Rate Defaulters (Imprisonment)
  Police Dogs
  Police Dogs
  Guard Dogs
  Guard Dogs
  Immigration Bill
  Immigration Bill
  York Hotel, Redcar (Fire)
  York Hotel, Redcar (Fire)
  Complaints against Police
  Complaints against Police
  Films (Advertisements)
  Films (Advertisements)
  Police (Enforcement of Law)
  Police (Enforcement of Law)
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Untried Prisoners
  Untried Prisoners
  Bail
  Bail
  Customs (Ships' Passengers)
  Customs (Ships' Passengers)
  Mrs. McKay (B.B.C. Film)
  Mrs. McKay (B.B.C. Film)
  Illegal Immigration (Television Programme)
  Illegal Immigration (Television Programme)
  James Hanratty
  James Hanratty
EMPLOYMENT
  Stockbrokers
  Stockbrokers
  Male Workers (Average Weekly Earnings)
  Male Workers (Average Weekly Earnings)
  Darlington and Aycliffe
  Darlington and Aycliffe
  Wolverhampton and West Midlands (Unemployed Persons)
  Wolverhampton and West Midlands (Unemployed Persons)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Production Costs
  Production Costs
  Huddersfield
  Huddersfield
  Surveys
  Surveys
  Industrial Disputes, Scotland
  Industrial Disputes, Scotland
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Lord Melchett (Meeting)
  Lord Melchett (Meeting)
  United Kingdom (Imports and Exports)
  United Kingdom (Imports and Exports)
  Dollar Land Company
  Dollar Land Company
  Origin Marking Order (Shirts and Pyjamas)
  Origin Marking Order (Shirts and Pyjamas)
  Navigational Competence
  Navigational Competence
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Marine Search and Rescue Organisation
  Marine Search and Rescue Organisation
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Economic Council
  Scottish Economic Council
  Secondary School Teachers
  Secondary School Teachers
  Mental and Mental Deficiency Hospitals
  Mental and Mental Deficiency Hospitals
  Register House, Edinburgh (Visit)
  Register House, Edinburgh (Visit)
  Hospital Building Supervisors (Courses)
  Hospital Building Supervisors (Courses)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Trades Union Congress (Talks on Unemployment)
  Trades Union Congress (Talks on Unemployment)
  Monetary and Credit Control
  Monetary and Credit Control
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Tax Avoidance
  Tax Avoidance
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Economy
  Economy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  St. Kitts and Anguilla
  St. Kitts and Anguilla
  College of Europe, Bruges (Seminars)
  College of Europe, Bruges (Seminars)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Military Nuclear Knowledge (Sharing)
  Military Nuclear Knowledge (Sharing)
  Pakistan (Aid)
  Pakistan (Aid)
ENVIRONMENT
  West Dock Scheme, Bristol (Grant)
  West Dock Scheme, Bristol (Grant)
  Ports, South Wales and Bristol (Talks)
  Ports, South Wales and Bristol (Talks)
  Housing Subsidies (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
  Housing Subsidies (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
  Vacuum Sewerage Systems
  Vacuum Sewerage Systems
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (BILATERAL AGREEMENTS)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (BILATERAL AGREEMENTS)
  CAMDEN
  CAMDEN
  THE BLACK COUNTRY
  THE BLACK COUNTRY
  MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (GRANTS)
  MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (GRANTS)
  MR. LYNCH (MEETING)
  MR. LYNCH (MEETING)
  NATIONALISED BOARDS CHAIRMEN, JUDGES AND HIGHERPAID CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY)
  NATIONALISED BOARDS CHAIRMEN, JUDGES AND HIGHERPAID CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY)
  SCHOOL DINNERS (LETTERS)
  SCHOOL DINNERS (LETTERS)
  TELEPHONE TAPPING (SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS)
  TELEPHONE TAPPING (SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Homeless Persons (London)
  Homeless Persons (London)
  General Practitioner Hospitals
  General Practitioner Hospitals
  Abortion Operations
  Abortion Operations
  AMBASSADORS AND CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL SPEECHES AND BROADCASTS)
  AMBASSADORS AND CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL SPEECHES AND BROADCASTS)

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

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION (SOUTHAMPTON COMMON) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUNDAY THEATRE BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to permit and regulate the opening and use of theatres on Sundays, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. The object of the Motion is to meet the convenience of those interested in the Bill.
Moved, That leave be given to the Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie to advance the Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill from Friday, the 21st, to Monday, the 10th instant.—(Viscount Goschen.)
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I wish to give vent to a slight feeling of reservation about this. Not
452
only is this the third day on which this Bill has been on the Order Paper, but it is certainly not for the convenience of all those concerned. For instance, my noble friend Lord Thurso, who lives in the furthest North of Scotland—and this is a Scottish Bill—is unable to get to your Lordships' House for Monday's business without leaving quite early on Sunday; and as a result he will not be able to take part. I realise that it is not possible to please everyone, but I should have thought that a Scottish Bill of such a highly contentious nature might have been taken in the middle of the week.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on this change of date, in that he has recognised that the date at present on the Order Paper coincides with the meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I am sorry if it is impossible for the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to be present, but in these matters it is very difficult to please everybody.
LORD SHEPHERD: Then why not withdraw the Bill? That would be the best thing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, perhaps I might remind the House that the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock, when the Committee stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will be taken. Perhaps I might also remind your Lordships that dinner will be available this evening.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, at what time will the people who are interested in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill dine?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, or any other noble Lord, will be able to go to the Bishops' Bar and eat what is sometimes described as a light or a heavy snack; or, alternatively, can have an early or a late dinner.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.11 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: I wonder whether the noble Lord is ready yet to go into Committee. There seems to be rather a shortage of noble Lords on his side of the House. I wonder whether they are seeking to get their numbers more reasonably into relation to the size of the Opposition, or whether they are queueing up for the dinner break. I take it that, despite this, the noble Lord wants to make some progress, and it may be that he thinks that with fewer interventions from that side we shall be able to go on faster. But some of those noble Lords who are on the Minister's side of the House and who do stimulate the Opposition are present.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as they used to say in another place, I think we had better see how we get on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
Modification of rights by agency shop agreement
".—(1) Where an agency shop agreement is for the time being in force, a worker to whom the agreement applies shall not have the right, as between himself an an employer to whom the agreement applies, to refuse to he a member of the trade union with which the agreement was made unless he agrees to pay appropriate contributions to the trade union in lieu of membership of it.
(2) In accordance with the preceding subsection, it shall not be an unfair industrial practice for an employer to whom an agency shop agreement applies, or for a person acting on behalf of such an employer,—

(a) to dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against any such worker on the grounds that he is not a member of the trade union with which the agreement was made and has not agreed, or has refused or tailed, to pay appropriate contributions to it, or

(b) to refuse to engage a worker who, if engaged by the employer, would be a worker to Whom the agreement applies, on the grounds that he is not a member of that trade union and has refused to become a member of it and has also refused to pay appropriate contributions to it.

(3) In the application of the preceding subsection; to an agency shop agreement made with two or more trade unions, references in those subsections to the trade union with which the agreement was made shall be construed as references to one of those trade unions.
(4) In relation to a person who, in accordance with section 8 or section 9 of this Act, is permitted on grounds of conscience to pay contributions to a charity instead of contributions to a trade union, subsections (1) to (3) of this section shall have effect as if any reference to appropriate contributions to a trade union were a reference to equivalent contributions to that charity.
(5) In this Act references to an employer to whom an agency shop agreement applies shall be construed as follows, that is to say—

(a) in the case of such an agreement made by one or more employers, or made by an employers' association and expressed to be made on behalf of one or more employers specified in the agreement, any such reference shall be construed as a reference to that employer or any of those employers, as the case may be;

(b) in the case of such an agreement made by an employers' association otherwise than as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, any such reference shall be construed as a reference to any employer who is for the time being a member of that employers' association, whether he was a member of it on the date on which the agreement was made or not."

The noble Lord said: I do not think I need delay the Committee very long on this new clause, or give a lengthy explanation of its purposes, because I have already explained what it does. Subsections (1) and (2) reproduce subsection (3) of Clause 5, with minor amendments; subsection (3) is new, and covers cases where there is more than one trade union in agency shop agreements; subsection (4) reproduces subsection (4) of Clause 5 in virtually identical terms, and subsection (5) is intended to allow for the possibility that one or more employers or an employers' association may be parties to an

455
agency shop agreement. The point is that the Amendments will permit an employers' association to make an agency shop agreement on behalf of its members, in the same way as an employers' association may enter into an approved closed shop agreement under the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1.
Clause 5 is reconstructed into two new clauses, with the addition of the new provisions. Clause 10 of the Bill allows one or more employers to be joint parties to an agency shop agreement, but the clause would not enable an employers' association itself to be a party to such an agreement and thereby bind all its members, present and future. The Amendment to Clause 10 and the provisions of subsection (5) of the new clause will enable agency shop agreements to be made between employers' associations and trade unions. This is important, because it will allow certain closed shop agreements at present in existence to be readily replaced by agency shop agreements. In some industries there are closed shop agreements which have been negotiated and entered into by the appropriate employers' association. The Amendment will avoid having to negotiate separate agreements, particularly where new members join an association which has a longstanding agreement.
Perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that these Amendments would not permit a trade union to apply for an agency shop agreement with an employers' association under the provisions of Clause 10(2) if the employers' association was unwilling to enter voluntarily into the agreement. Those provisions are restricted to unilateral application against the employer. Clearly an employers' association can and should act only with the consent of its members. If those members do not wish to enter into a voluntary agency shop agreement—that is, they do not want their association to act on their behalf in the matter—then the union should apply for the agency shop against the employers and not against their association. These new provisions are introduced in the Amendment to Clause 10 and to subsection (5) of the new clause. They are similar to the provisions relating to approved closed shop agreements which are contained in Schedule 1, paragraph 25.
456
Employers' associations will be able to enter into voluntary agency shop agreements in the same way as they will be able to enter into and apply for approval of closed shop agreements. The other Amendments, as I have said, are mainly drafting, and I hope the House will agree to this new clause. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, No. 53D:
Line 5 of subsection (1), leave out from ("unless") to end of the subsection and insert ("the agency shop agreement permits him so to refuse").
The noble Baroness said: We shall, I assume, have some further opportunity for more general discussion on this proposed new clause. My Amendment is put down simply to indicate the feelings of those of us on this side of the House and our dislike of the proposals in the new clause in so far as they affect the agency shop agreement. We had some discussion in the late evening and early hours of our last Committee proceedings as to the status of persons who do not wish to join trade unions, and we made it perfectly clear on that occasion, as we shall do later on the Bill, that we have sympathy with the very small number of persons who have genuine conscientious grounds for not wishing to join a trade union. But, frankly, we have no sympathy for those who are simply anti-union.
What we are suggesting in this Amendment is that it should be open to workers and employers, where they so wish—because this is referring to an agreement between the two sides—to say that, apart from the conscience clause, which, as I say, we would go along with, to put into their agreement that workers shall not have the right to opt out. I do not expect for a moment that the Government will accept this suggestion but it is only right that we should take the opportunity of making it plain that where there is an agreement between both sides, we prefer the closed shop to the agency shop, which after all is the kernel of this new clause, and the purpose of this Amendment is to indicate that. I beg to move.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I know that my noble friend Lady White does not expect the Government to accept this Amendment but perhaps the noble Lord will let the Committee know why.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know whether the noble Lord was present when my noble friend gave a clear exposition of the purposes of the agency shop agreement. Perhaps I should say that the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that we are unlikely to accept this Amendment, because it would have the effect of destroying the compromise which the agency shop agreement should represent. We think it is right that the worker in an agency shop should have the right not to join the union and instead pay a contribution to the union. My noble friend clearly explained the reasons for this and I do not think your Lordships would wish me to go over the arguments again. The plan fact is that, having passed Clause 5, the provisions of which give the right to an employee not to belong, it seems to me to be wrong that we should then provide that the union and the employer should be able together to take away that right. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Will the noble Lord forgive my ignorance in connection with this matter? If a person refuses to join a union, according to this clause he will have to make a contribution to the union in lieu of membership. What does that contribution entitle him to?
LORD DRUMALBYN: He is either a member or not a member; therefore under the Bill he will be entitled to nothing at all. But of course he is entitled to the right not to be compelled to join, and he will be protected in the exercise of that right.
LORD POPPLEWELL: This is rather a phoney position, to say the least. There is going to be the power to compel a man to make a contribution to an organisation that he does not believe in. Obviously the reason is that he can keep in employment. I should have thought that the Amendment moved by my noble friend was the common-sense thing to do. If we have to deal with this agency shop business, which frankly I do not like, surely it is common sense to allow both sides to write into the agreement the basis which both sides would like to see working in their industry. Surely we should accept the words my noble friend wishes to insert in order to be able to write this into an agreement at the time when the agency shop agreement is
458
being negotiated. That would be much better than being dictatorial and saying, "Look here, Tom Jones, you are going to work at Vickers and though you do not believe in unions, you are going to pay something to the union funds. But you will have no benefit."
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may say so, the noble Lord is going back on the arguments he previously used. Obviously a worker will have the benefit of the negotiations that the union conducts on behalf of the union and that is the justification for retaining the words which are in the clause at the present time:
…be agrees to pay appropriate contributions to the trade union in lieu of membership of it."
LORD POPPLEWELL: The noble Lord has just indicated the muddled thinking involved here, because when I first asked a question, he told me that such a man got nothing; now we are getting a new type of definition. I can appreciate the point the noble Lord is making, but I thought he would have stated it correctly at the start.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord asked me what rights such a member has. In fact, he will enjoy the benefits but not the rights, except in so far as they are negotiated by the unions.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Surely it is not a question of rights or benefits. If a man can get the benefit of the negotiations of the union surely in that case he gets the rights with them? Surely this is splitting hairs. I think the noble Lord ought to accept this common-sense Amendment. If both sides have to negotiate in agency shop agreement, they should be allowed the utmost latitude in negotiation.
3.28 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: I cannot understand why noble Lords opposite, in view of their sentiments about trade unionism and the right or absence of right to join a union and their sentiments on the matter of compulsion, should refuse to accept this Amendment. What does the clause which the noble Lords wish to retain in the Bill mean? There is to be an agency shop agreement; that is the first condition. If that agency shop agreement provides for the man contracting out of being a member of the appropriate union,

459
he is to be called upon, according to the provision, to pay an appropriate contribution to the trade union.
I speak as an old trade unionist, not as a modern one. I would say that I do not want his money. I cannot imagine a self-respecting trade union, after having gone to all the trouble of promoting an agency shop agreement, wanting money from him. If there had been a provision that he should make a contribution to a charity—and a trade union is not a charitable organisation—one might have understood it; but even then, I do not think that that is a satisfactory solution to the problem.
The proposition made by my noble friend Lady White is a logical one. What does it mean? The noble Lord opposite said to my noble friend Lord Popplewell that he was going back on some arguments he had hitherto used. I have not used any arguments on this matter, so I come fresh to the subject. Perhaps that is a a good thing, because this matter is so intricate. I listened the day before yesterday to the legal wrangle, which occupied many hours of your Lordships' time, and in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor played a very prominent part, as one would expect. I remind myself of something he said, not in my hearing but I happened to read the OFFICIAL REPORT that on legal matters it was his expertise. What impresses me as being rather singular is that if someone is an expert on a subject he ought, with the necessary logic, to clarify the situation in a few simple words, instead of which he became completely confused and he baffled me. That may be my misfortune; nevertheless one is in the hands of these legal luminaries. Surely this is a sensible proposition.
I appeal to noble Lords opposite: what is it they want? They want a man to have the opportunity of joining a trade union. They have said that all along and we accept it. It is quite an appropriate sentiment, in the existing circumstances, in order to promote reasonable industrial relations. However, at the same time they do not want a man to be forced to join a trade union. That is their sentiment and I am able to understand it. Therefore there is a provision to have an agency shop agreement. I am unable to
460
understand why the word "agency" should intrude into this matter. But I am able to understand an arrangement—call it what you like, "agency" or anything else—whereby the employers and trade unions come to some compromise or agreement which provides that the man within the ambit of the shop agreement should have the right to refuse to join a union. One can understand it; that is an agreement. Then he is asked to pay an appropriate contribution—conscience money.
If I may say so in the presence of the right reverend Prelates who know more about this subject than I do, I am able to understand conscience in a theological context or in a moral context, but why one has a conscience in the matter of whether one should join a trade union I do not know. I am bound to say that it seems to me to be more a political question than a matter of conscience. We ought not to beat about the bush in these matters. I appeal to noble Lords opposite: what would they prefer—an agency shop agreement? That is the beginning, and within the provisions embodied in the agency shop agreement a man has the right to refuse to join a union. That satisfies noble Lords opposite, and apparently we seem to be satisfied with that provision. But then the man who refuses to join has to pay an appropriate contribution. Who engendered this strange, fantastic and grotesque idea, that it is not necessary for a man to join the trade union but he must pay it a contribution?
I wonder whether the Registrar-General of the Friendly Societies, when he has to deal with the accounting of trade unions—and there is provision for that in the Industrial Relations Bill—will see amongst these items that a number of workers or persons have made a contribution amounting to so much. It could be ten shillings, it could amount to £10 in total. He may ask where this money comes from. It has just occurred to me to ask whether a trade union could use this money for political purposes. That is an idea. When any money comes in on the side from those who do not wish to join the trade union, probably because they are actuated by political bias, the trade union may decide to use it for political purposes. That is a remarkable paradox. This really will not do, and the noble Lord ought to look at the matter again. I cannot see why he does

461
not accept this Amendment. There is nothing objectionable in accepting it. In the circumstances, it is not only appropriate, but it is logical in its common sense.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am not a lover of the agency shop conception and I am a very simple and naÏve person. However, if we are to have the agency shop I should like to know what it means and what are its implications. Let us imagine that there is a factory employing 1,000 people, 900 of whom are good, loyal trade unionists, paying their contributions week by week. If there is a successful wage demand they will receive the reward of their loyalty to the trade union in the form of increased wages. Let us assume that there are 50 others who come in the intermediate class, who do not wish to join the union, who have been put off, perhaps by Conservative organisations, from taking that step, but who are willing to contribute to the funds of the union in the way that my noble friend, Lord Shinwell, has described. If there is a strike which leads to an increase in wages, will they receive the increased wages?
The remaining 50 of those people will belong to the third, the conscientious, class. They will not wish to have anything to do with the union at all; they will not even give it this conscience money. What will happen about the increased wages in so far as they are concerned? I have deliberately kept the three points of the question very simple. The point I have tried to make is that there will be three classes of people in the factory and I should like to know what will be the benefits which each of those classes will enjoy if there has been, first, an application for a wage increase which has been negotiated, and secondly, a strike which has led to a wage increase?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, described the Amendment as a logical Amendment. Logic flows from certain premises. The premises from which the provision in this clause flows are two: the first is the principle in Clause 5(1)(b), the right to refuse to be a member of any particular trade union or other organisation of workers, or to be a member of no trade union or other organisation. The second thing it flows from is the feeling that
462
has been so often expressed from the Benches opposite, that there should not be a free rider ". It is for that reason, and to meet what we regard as quite a legitimate point of view, that on the one hand a person is given the right not to belong to a union and on the other hand he cannot exercise that right as a free rider; he has therefore to pay a contribution. I should have thought that that was something that would commend itself to the noble Lords opposite, and I hope that for those reasons the Committee will accept it.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, asked me what an "agency shop" means. We are going to come to Clause 10 and we shall have a full opportunity of discussing what an agency shop means, but I think I have already described it sufficiently in what I have already said. It say s quite clearly what is meant in Clause 10; that an agency shop agreement is made between one or more employers and one or more trade unions that the terms and conditions of employment of the workers covered shall include a condition that every such worker must be or become a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions, as the case may be, or agree to pay contributions to that trade union. When something is written into a Statute of this kind, although noble Lords may not like it or accept it, it would surely be wrong and wholly illogical to allow a union and employer to get together and defeat the purposes of the agency shop agreement.
LORD SHINWELL: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to say whether, when these contributions are made by a man who has refused to join within the provisions of the agency shop agreement and he is paying a contribution to the trade union, there is to be any restriction on the use to which that money can be put? May it be used for political purposes in order some day to bring down this Government? Can that be done?
LORD DRUMALBYN: These funds cannot be used for political purposes, and the Bill so provides.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I thank the noble Lord for replying to my point and

463
referring to Clause 10. Clause 10 provides that when the agreement between the workers, their unions and the employers is drawn up, it shall refer to "workers of one or more descriptions specified in the agreement". What, therefore, would be the position if the union, in entering into this agreement with the employers, specified in the agreement that the increased wages to be awarded should apply only to the fully paid-up members of the union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That would not be "a description of workers" within the meaning of the term.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not want to appear discourteous, but I feel that I must press this point, because the clause says that this agreement between the workers, their union and the employers is in respect of "workers of one or more descriptions specified in the agreement". As I said, the agreement might well specify that the wage award granted should apply to the members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and to nobody else.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The 1913 Act governs this, and it is not repealed in that respect, so far as this Bill is concerned. The political funds have to be separately subscribed. That is the answer to the noble Lord.
LORD PARGITER: I should like to ask the noble Lord about the position in the event of the situation arising to which my noble friends have referred; that is, that there is a strike which is officially recognised, but non-union members are not on strike, and perhaps one or two union members might not go on strike. In accordance with the union's rules, unless they are to be severely altered, the union would have the right to inflict fines on those members who refused to carry out the union's instruction. But what would happen to the non-unionists: would they have to pay a fine as well? This would be the appropriate thing for them to do, because they would then be making the same contribution as the member of the union. The noble Lord is saying that the contribution must be roughly the same as that of the members of the union. This would be a contribution. It seems to me that this would be a most unusual situation, if the union
464
could properly inflict a fine on two or three members of the union who did not strike, yet could not inflict a similar penalty on the contributors to the union who were not members of the union but who equally were not on strike.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Plainly, if a man is not a member, he is not under the jurisdiction of the union, and therefore it would not be possible for the union to inflict a fine on the non-members.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I heard the nine o'clock news and a nice little girl from Bristol University who said: "This is to be nice day. You should be nice to everybody". I am going to be very nice to noble Lords opposite, and if those who who are sleeping can hear the trumpeter calling, I hope for the moment they will attend to the logic of the tiny argument that I am going to deploy. First, the drafting of this Amendment, which has suddenly been plunged on the Committee by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, is such that it should be taken back. It refers to "section 8 and section 9 of this Act". There is no such thing. We have Clause 8 and Clause 9. Is it referring to section 8 and section 9 or to Clause 8 and Clause 9? If your Lordships look at it, it is really referring to Clause 8 and Clause 9.
The other argument we are told by the noble Lord is that all this stems from Clause 5(1). The day before yesterday I had the opportunity of saying that I considered Clause 5 to be one of the most dangerous parts of this Bill. It is one of the most swingeing clauses in the Bill. In that clause are matters which are referred to later in the Bill. I used the phrase the other day that "we are asked to join a South Sea bubble". To-day, we have had an explanation of the Bill from noble Lords on this side. We are asking about agency shops, and we are told that when we get to five clauses later in the Bill we shall have an opportunity of discussing agency shops. But we are asked to-day to pass a clause implying acceptance of agency shops before we reach Clause 10 which asks us to accept agency shops. Is that correct? It is absolutely correct. I do not know what the Law Lords will say about it, but, so far as the English language and understanding of human affairs

465
is concerned, that is correct. Now to look at the noble Lord's Amendment—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may bring the noble Lord back to the Amendment we are discussing. We are not discussing my Amendment, but the Amendment to the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Certainly: if the Amendments were coherent and the language of the clause had meaning. This is the bewildering facts about the entire Bill. It is a miasma of foggy verbiage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): What we are discussing is Lady White's Amendment. That may be a miasma of foggy verbiage, but it is not a miasma of foggy verbiage for which my noble friend is any way responsible. The noble Lord is discussing something which is not before the Committee.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I beg to differ. Logically, I am diametrically opposed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We are discussing an Amendment to a clause which is before the Committee. My statement was that this clause is a miasma of foggy verbiage, because the phraseology is loose and inaccurate. It refers to "clauses" when it says it is referring to "sections". That is my case.
I now come to the Amendment. In my humble estimation, we are not able intelligently to come to a decision on this clause in this Committee because we have not yet had a full discussion on the implications of an agency shop, the meaning of "unfair practices" in relation to an agency shop, and the fact that there has to be a vote in a trade union to establish an agency shop. Quite frankly, I think it was unfair to put in this Amendment before we have had the opportunity to discuss Clause 10.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, one question. What would the penalty be for a non-trade unionist who failed to pay the contribution to the trade union?
BARONESS WHITE: Does the noble Lord refuse to answer? Apparently, he does. I think our brief debate on this Amendment has indicated the difficul-
466
ties which we on this side of the Committee feel about this whole conception. We had a discussion in our last debate about the inadequacy of a money payment as a substitution for membership of a union. I appreciate fully the noble Lord's argument about this and about avoiding free riders; but I am sure that he will appreciate how distasteful we find this whole conception: that someone should be paying money towards an organisation in which he does not believe, which he does not like, and to which he does not wish to belong. It is a distasteful and rather humiliating situation for both sides, it seems to me. Although I am not sure to which part of the Bill the noble Lord was referring when he said that the political expenditure would not be permitted out of these contributions—it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could contain himself for a moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Baroness was asking a question, and I was trying to tell my noble friend the answer. Since the noble Baroness has got me to my feet, the answer is that she will see it printed in Clause 7(3). It is, as your Lordships know, the proposal, which has not yet been reached, that that should be moved out of the Bill at this stage and moved back into the Bill at a later stage. It is conveniently printed there for the noble Baroness to see.
BARONESS WHITE: I was asking, just to make sure, about where the Government proposed to bring this in. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I was not for one moment so sanguine as my noble friend Lord Shinwell in thinking that this money might be used for political purposes. Nevertheless, I have a shrewd suspicion that many unions will wish to put any such contributions not into their general funds, but into some special fund: and it may well be that they would like to use them for educational purposes, so that those who at present are so misguided as not to wish to join a trade union but take all the benefits of trade union action may be more enlightened in the future. I do not think at this stage of the Bill that we shall have any other opportunity of expressing our view on the agency shops. We do not wish to take the time of the House to divide

467
on this Amendment, but I do not feel disposed simply to withdraw it. It represents a feeling which we on this side of the House have very strongly and of which your Lordships have now had some indication.
3.50 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: May I ask the noble and learned Lord if he would be even more helpful than he has so far been with regard to Clause 7(3). The noble and learned Lord has quite obviously referred us to the right subsection, and he will recognise that what is troubling my noble friends is not the quantum of the payment but the appropriation by the union of the amount received to certain purposes. On a preliminary reading of the subsection to which the noble and learned Lord has been good enough to refer us, it seems to me that this merely determines the maximum amount which may be paid to the union. I know that this is a very complicated branch of the law, about apropriating a sum received from another party to one purpose or another, and I am not attempting to say what it might or might not mean. I am asking the noble and learned Lord whether he would be good enough to look at this again and tell us whether he is quite satisfied that the putting of an upper limit on the amount which a non-union member pays to a union automatically determines the way in which that union can use that money.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will he helpful at the right moment, but I should be wholly out of order if I pursued that matter now. We are discussing now the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, which would enable an agreement, despite the other provisions of the clause we are discussing, to have a pre-entry closed shop. I do not want to lead the Committee astray in pursuing an argument which can be properly pursued at the appropriate moment.
LORD SHINWELL: A pertinent question was posed by my noble friend Lady Summerskill. She asked what happens if a man refuses to join a trade union within the ambit of the agreement and refuses to pay the contribution. Reference was made to Clause 7. I mention it
468
merely because it was referred to, I think, by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. There is no provision there other than bringing a man before a tribunal. We might reach the paradoxical situation in which a man who refuses to be a member of a union and refuses to pay his contribution is brought either before a tribunal or the Industrial Court and penalised. Would the noble and learned Lord answer the question posed by my noble friend as to what happens if a man refuses to pay?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not reply at that moment to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill because we shall get on to this subject on the very next Amendment, and I hope that she will have before her the new clause. I did not want to be in any way discourteous but I was anxious to get on. I am not sure if I am right about this. If the noble Lords will look at page 143, Schedule 4, they will see in paragraph 20:
"The rules must make provision as to the purposes for which, and the manner in which, any property or funds of the organisation are authorised to be applied or invested."
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
LORD DIAMOND: May I ask for guidance on a point of order as to what happens, whether there is a rule about the vote following the voice? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, seemed by his voice to be quite content about this Amendment, yet I gather he is not proposing to pursue it. I do not know whether that is open to him.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I believe it is even possible to change one's vote if one has gone through the wrong Lobby.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is not able to change his voice, and this is what he has done. Perhaps he would have a lesson, and his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, from his Whips.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I put the Question again. The Question is, That this Amendment be agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: So far as I know, no Tellers have been appointed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand no Tellers have been appointed on one side; we had two Tellers, the other side did not.
BARONESS WHITE: We were endeavouring to save your Lordships' time. I am afraid that when the Motion was put to the Committee the vehemence of the "Not-Contents" from the Government Front Bench caused some voices to be raised in other parts of the House when the Question was put. This has led to the present situation in which we have wasted a great deal of time.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Clerk has confirmed that Tellers have not been appointed on one side. There cannot therefore be a Division. Amendment No. 53D is not agreed to, and the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment to Amendment negatived.
LORD SHACKLETON: I wonder whether I should rise and ask whether the Committee should now adjourn while the procedures that we follow may be considered. We have been doing our best to co-operate with the Government on this matter.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL ELLICOE): I do not consider that the Government have in any way not complied with the procedures, and I do not think it would be in the interests of anyone to adjourn. More seriously, I do not believe the Committee would wish to adjourn. I think we can pass on to the next Amendment quite easily.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 53E:
Line 4 of subsection (2)(a), after first ("or") insert ("having so agreed").
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we took Amendments 53E and 53F together. These Amendments are to clarify the drafting on this very important clause. We must bear in mind throughout our proceedings that this is a Bill which will affect millions of workers in this country. One of their general objections to this Bill is that it is extremely difficult to envisage the ordinary person on the shop floor, the shop steward, following the intricacies of this legislation. It is essential that
470
we should, on every possible occasion, make it as plain as possible.
Our reason for putting down these two Amendments is to make it quite plain that the person we are referring to as someone who has refused, or failed, is someone who is in default, having agreed in the first place to contribute. It is for the employers in such circumstances, if someone has agreed to pay the appropriate contribution, and then has subsequently refused, omitted or failed to pay, to dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against any such worker. That is referring to somebody already in his employ. In subsection (2)(b) the employer may refuse to engage a worker, and in this case if someone, having agreed to pay, has failed to pay his appropriate contribution, or has refused to do so, this can only in the circumstances, refer to some previous employment.
It may well be that an employer may be contemplating engaging someone, but the unions may have a record of this person and say, "He is now applying for a job with Brown; we know when he was employed by Smith and Co. he said he did not want to join the union, he undertook to make certain payments, but our records indicate that he was a defaulter. Therefore on our information, which we can present to you, we object to your engaging such a person because he will not, on past experience, keep his undertakings." It is for those quite straightforward reasons that we feel it would improve the drafting of this part of this clause if these two Amendments were made.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of the clause, as it stands, is to deal with the actual application subsection (2)(b):
"to refuse to engaged a worker who, if engaged by the employer, would be a worker to whom the agreement applies, on the grounds that he is not a member of that trade union and has refused to become a member of it and has also refused to pay appropriate contributions to it",
The word "failed" will not be appropriate because a person could not have failed to pay a contribution in the circumstances here envisaged until the person had been engaged. The noble Baroness has raised an interesting point in her first Amendment. We shall wish to look at that again. The noble Baroness will also have

471
seen the following Amendment, and perhaps we will have a little more elucidation when we consider that. If she will be good enough to withdraw this Amendment we will gladly look at it again to see whether it is absolutely necessary in the light of discussion on the next Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I am willing to do that insofar as the first Amendment is concerned. The second Amendment, subsection (2)(b), is something I should like to take up because I think we should provide for circumstances which I thought I had clearly described. Although it is perfectly true that, at the point of the engagement, the man could not have failed to pay in that particular job, it may well be—and I repeat this—that the union could have a record of this person in other employment. This is a fair point, and something which could lead to a great deal of irritation and controversy at the place of work if the union said, "We have told you, we can prove that this chap has a record of default, and that therefore he is not likely to be within the terms of the agency shop agreement as made between us". We ought to provide for that situation, where a union can come in perfectly good faith, and with well authenticated information, and say to the employer, "This chap is not a person that you can trust to keep his engagement."
LORD DRUMALBYN: I understand the noble Baroness' point, but it surely cannot be said to follow that because a person have refused to pay before he will necessarily refuse to pay again. This really comes back to the question of the noble Baroness Lady Summerskill. The whole purpose of the provisions here is to remove the protection against dismissal of a worker who refuses or fails to pay. Therefore, this is the point here. We did not, and we do not, intend that it should be possible to refuse to engage a worker because on some previous occasion, and possibly with some different union, he had failed to pay his dues.
BARONESS WHITE: I have tried to help the noble Lord. I can only say that I am quite sure that a situation of this kind is going to lead to trouble in the future. The trouble will be on your own heads. In view of what the noble Lord has said about the subsequent Amendment
472
which I think the noble Lord, Lord Gray, wishes to move, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.11 p.m.
LORD GRAY LORD GRAY moved as an Amendment to Amendment No. 53:
Line 4 of subsection 2(b), leave out ("has refused") and insert ("refuses").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53A and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if in doing so I speak also to No. 53B. We have already heard something of these Amendments. The two Amendments together seek to change from past to present the tense in the fourth and fifth lines of subsection (2)(b) of the new clause. I am inviting noble Lords to look at a relatively narrow point but one which I believe is important in itself because it touches the intention of a paragraph which in effect spells out an exception to what might otherwise be an unfair industrial practice.
Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause, as I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already pointed out, allows that it shall not be an unfair industrial practice if where an agency shop agreement is in force an employer refuses employment to an individual on the grounds that he is not a member of the relevant trade union—and here I quote:
"and has refused to become a member of it and has also refused to pay appropriate contributions to it."
I believe these words as they stand are capable of retrospective interpretation. I do not think that is, or should be, the intention of the provision; but rather, as I think my noble friend has already said, they should apply only to what occurs and transpires during negotiations for a particular job. I hope noble Lords will agree that, if we substitute for the words "has refused" the word "refuses", and in place of the words "has also refused" put the words "also refuses", we shall have clarified the intention and secured it. I hope noble Lords will agree that this will improve the new clause as it stands, and the Government may perhaps he able to accept my Amendment. I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to say to the noble Lord that he has here found something and has put down an Amendment that makes our intention clearer than apparently it was to noble Lords opposite. I am sorry that the noble Baroness should have taken a different meaning from the words, but so far as the Government are concerned they are grateful to the noble Lord for having pointed out this difficulty and I should be glad if your Lordships would accept this Amendment.
I should perhaps point out that there will be several consequential Amendments necessary if the noble Lord's Amendments are accepted. The same applies, for example, in subsection (2)(a), with the words:
"or refuses or fails, to pay appropriate contributions to it".
But I do not think even the noble Baroness would have any objection to that one. There may be other places also where we should have to make Amendments; for example, in Clause 16(5)(a). But we shall look to see whether any further Amendments are needed in order to preserve consistency through the Bill.
LORD GRAY: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and for his acceptance of my Amendment. In regard to subsection (2)(a), however, I do not think the point arises, since dismissal would follow as a consequence of refusal in that particular employment. But I am very happy with what the noble Lord has said.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord may well be right. We shall have to look at this. I was merely warning the Committee that there might be some further Amendments.
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
LORD GRAY: I formally beg to move Amendment No. 53B.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 5 of subsection (2)(b), leave out ("has also refused") and insert ("also refuses").(Lord Gray.)
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No.
474
53F, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 53:
Line 5 of subsection (2)(b), after ("refused") insert ("or having so agreed has failed").
The noble Baroness said: I have explained our view on this matter, which is diametrically opposite to what has just been agreed to by the Committee. In the cirumstances, I do not move Amendment No. 53F.
4.16 p.m.
BATONESS WHITE BATONESS WHITE moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 53:
Line 4 of subsection (3), leave out ("one of those trade unions") and insert ("the trade union in respect of workers of the description of the worker concerned").
The noble Baroness said: I apologise for what I must admit is the rather inelegant language of this Amendment (No. 53G on the List), but we are somewhat concerned about what we feel may be a loophole in subsection (3) of his new clause. If one looks at Clause 10, to which the words in our Amendment relate, one will see that care is there taken to describe the type of worker who will be covered in these agreements. We are somewhat concerned that in the clause as it row stands it would be open to an employer, possibly, to manœuvre (to put not too fine a point upon it) between (shall we say?) a trade union and an organisation which we know in history is a company union, and so on, and that this could leave a certain loophole; and it would thus be possible for a worker to join an organisation which did not in fact fit his description of work as provided for in Clause 10.
I repeat, if a more elegant form of words can be found to meet the same object, we should have no hesitation in withdrawing this Amendment; but we should like to know that the Government are aware that we have this apprehension. We do not suppose that it will be a frequent occurrence, but it is possible; and we think therefore that the provision should be rather more tightly drawn so that it is in consonance with the kind of provisions made in Clause 10, the main agency shop clause. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With respect, I do not think this Amendment is desirable. Perhaps the noble Baroness has,

475
for one thing, overlooked once again the words
"as between himself and an employer"
in line 3 of the new clause.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but that is precisely what we have not overlooked; that is what we are afraid of, as between the worker and his employer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The situation envisaged is that there may be several trade unions in the agency shop agreement. But what the noble Baroness's Amendment fails to recognise is that there are circumstances in which two unions may represent the same descriptions of workers—not the same workers, but the same description of workers—so that there may be a real choice there.
There may, for example, be workers of the same description represented by different unions because they happen to be employed in different parts of the plant. In such cases the agency shop agreement can specify which union is to receive the contributions. The Bill does not lay down any rule as to which agency union, when there is more than one, shall receive the contributions. The Government feel that it is better for the parties to the agency shop agreement to decide that. The Amendment to the Amendment, however, could produce an unworkable requirement and could cause difficulties where none at present exist. It goes without saying that in general the agency agreement will provide that certain descriptions of workers shall join a certain union which caters for such workers. It is unnecessary to add to this and to take away the flexibility which the present wording provides.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not dismiss this proposal out of hand but will have another look at it. I confess that the wording of this Amendment is not attractive, but there is something behind it. One can visualise a set of circumstances developing in an industry where a new union is attempting to break through and increasing the difficulties which often arise in consequence. The employer and employee could agree which union an individual should join. There may be a disturbing influence in that
476
shop. The object is to see that the man joins the union to which his particular skill and craft applies.
I agree that the wording is somewhat clumsy but I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is something in the fear we express and that, without committing himself unduly, he will not turn down the proposal out of hand but will have another look at it to see if he can find something more fitting with which to meet the fears we have over a possible development.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall certainly respond to that suggestion. After all, this Amendment to the Amendment appeared on the marshalled list only to-day. I do not in the least blame the noble Baroness, Lady White, for that, but obviously we have had to look at it in a certain amount of haste. I have given our immediate reaction. I admit that her Amendment would ensure that the worker joined the appropriate union, where there is more than one union. I have pointed out that there may be more than one union that he might join, but in such a case certainly it would be possible for the agency shop agreement to provide which union he should join in the particular circumstances of the part of the plant to which he goes. I do not anticipate any difficulty here, but I will very willingly look at the matter again.
BARONESS WHITE: I appreciate that my Amendment appeared late on the marshalled list and that the noble Lord did not have much time for consideration. In view of the assurance he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment, and I ask him to look at it again, because we have a genuine apprehension on this matter.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH Moved as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Leave out subsection (4)
The noble Lord said: The new clause we are discussing is notable, among other things, for two features. It represents, as some of my noble friends have already underlined, the first appearance in the Bill of the concept of the agency shop, which is a very new, controversial and,

477
some of us on this side of the House think, a very undesirable introduction into our industrial relations law. It also marks the first appearance in the Bill of the provision for giving a measure of statutory protection to conscientious objection as a ground for refusing to join a trade union. The right not to join has already been asserted in an earlier clause, but now we have a provision where even that right not to join is in various ways qualified and that there shall be a right on grounds of conscience to a statutory entitlement to remain outside a trade union.
I put this Amendment to your Lordships, not for the purpose of reaching a conclusion on this important and somewhat complex development, but to give noble Lords and the Committee an opportunity of giving preliminary consideration to it so that perhaps at a later stage we may reach a more definitive conclusion. Therefore, if it is not possible for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to reply in full detail on every point I raise, perhaps he will consider those points and reply to them later.
I want nothing I say in discussing this point to be regarded as in any way suggesting that my noble friends or I do not attach great importance to providing in our legal arrangements, in appropriate cases, protection for the individual conscience. Where there is no adequate protection in appropriate cases for the individual conscience one lives under a monstrous tyranny. I am very conscious that even when this country was fighting for its life the rights of conscience in respect of military service were respected, and respected not only by the law but by public opinion. This was one of the many features which distinguished this country from the monstrous tyranny we were then fighting. But, my Lords, it is appropriate, I think, to ask whether we are right to enshrine this particular statutory form. There are not, I think, in our legal code very many safeguards for the individual conscience. The right on conscientious grounds to make an affirmation rather than to take an oath comes to mind. The right on conscientious grounds to refuse military service is perhaps the most significant right of all in this regard. This was the right which was established by men of great courage, including my noble friend Lord Brockway, who played such a great part in establishing that right in
478
the First World War. There are rights for the protection of conscience by medical men in connection with the performance of abortions.
These clearly are all cases where an individual is being called upon to make a most serious personal decision which touches the very foundations of his ethical beliefs. He is being asked, in respect of the oath, to make the most solemn declaration which his conscience permits and it is very much in the interests of society that a man should feel himself bound by such a declaration. In the other cases he makes a declaration that he cannot face the responsibility for destroying the life of another human being.
These are great ethical questions in which our law, in my view rightly, gives protection to the conscience of the individual I am a member of a Party in which conscience has always played an important part. Indeed, a former Member of this House, a former Leader of the Party, Lord Attlee, once had occasion to remind the House that conscience was a still, small voice. One is allowed, and has traditionally been allowed, in the Labour Party to have conscientious scruples on matters affecting teetotalism. Perhaps the views on this matter are not quite so strong as they were in the past, but one can well understand individuals who in their personal experience have seen homes and families wrecked by intemperance and who take the strongest and deepest views on that subject.
But when I turn from considerations like that to the question of whether the law should provide a statutory protection for the conscience in respect of becoming a trade unionist, I am bound to say that I experience a sense of a change of scale. The Royal Commission on the Trade Unions remind us—and indeed the noble and learned Lord referred to this point the other night—that there are people who take the view (and they do so on the basis of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, that believes are enjoined—and I quote:
"That they be not unequally yoked with unbelievers."
If I may say so, that is a slightly pejorative account of joining a trade union, especially when one remembers—and I

479
think this is a fact within the knowledge of the Committee—the great and profoundly religious men who have played a part in the creation of the trade union movement, and the many churchmen and men of religious beliefs who have extended their sympathy to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I absolutely agree with what he is saying, but he will remember that these particular people—two groups of whom were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the other day—count as unbelievers almost everybody. Even if one took it in the strictest sense, it would be difficult to say that there were not some unbelievers, either in the trade unions or the Conservative Party, and the fact is that these particular people think it is wrong to join any association whatever which has in it a person whom they regard as an unbeliever. That makes it very hard for them, poor dears!
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I appreciate that and I was indeed going on to say that people who take that view are entitled to take it, of course, but they are very few in number. I am involved in a middling-size trade union and I have myself encountered literally only a handful of them over a good many years. It has been my experience that the genuine conscientious objector who shows, not only by his relationship with his fellows at work but in all the relationships in life, that he holds a particular coherent set of opinions and follows a particular and rigid set of moral standards has, invariably, the understanding, sympathy and respect of those with whom he works. It seems to me to be strange that we feel it necessary to make statutory provision. After all, it is not as though trade unions were responsible for deaths. I do not know that the trade union movement has ever been charged, even by its severest critics, with ruining as many homes as I think drink can be regarded as having ruined. Yet this particular relationship in the trade union movement is being singled out to be enshrined in this Industrial Relations Bill and a particular protection and provision made for it.
I am bound to say, with the greatest respect for the conscience of individuals,
480
and knowing as I do the problem of a man who follows a particular creed as exclusive as this, that he commands the respect of his fellow-workers and indeed often reciprocates respect for the trade union, though he will not join it. I really think we are to some extent exaggerating the significance of this matter, and I should have thought that this particular situation could be dealt with by some kind of declaration by the trade union movement—some kind of understanding—which I believe would be widely observed. The difficulty really is that once we have enshrined in a Statute a protection for the conscience of the genuine conscientious objector, one never quite knows where one is going to stop or what kind of frictions or difficulties one will get into. I ask myself whether it is the intention of the Government to embody a similar provision protecting people's consciences in other aspects of our industrial legislative arrangements.
Let me take one or two examples. which are not far-fetched. Let us take a man who is employed in an engineering works and who has normally been engaged in quite peaceful, satisfying work. He suddenly finds that his firm has entirely turned over to production for defence purposes. He might find this a great shock to his conscience. Or let us take a man who has perhaps worked hard and become the manager of a supermarket, and suddenly he learns that not only in the supermarket of which he is the manager but in all the others run by his employers, a drinks counter is to be started. He may say, "This is something completely foreign to my conscience. I have spent my life selling provisions and other foodstuffs but I have the greatest objection to being involved in selling drink to anybody". These are not frequent occurrences, but I suspect that they are quite as frequent as the individuals who have this deep conscientious objection to joining their fellows in a trade union. What is the position? Think of the man who says, "Because this firm is making armaments I will no longer work for it", or, "Because this shop is selling drink I will no longer work for it". That man cannot be accommodated by his employers elsewhere. Is he entitled to have this conscientious objection respected when, for example, he goes to claim unemployment insurance money? I am not

481
sure. Perhaps the noble Lord, not necessarily on this occasion but on some other occasion, can tell us.
I would invite the Committee to look at this question. I should not like anything I have said, either on my own behalf or on behalf of my noble friends, to cast doubt either on the genuineness of the tiny number of genuine conscientious objectors, or upon the importance of a complete respect in our Statute Law for conscience, where it is appropriate. But I cannot escape the feeling that to some extent, especially when one sees the complexities into which one is led by this policy, we are perhaps taking a steam-hammer to crack a rather small nut.
I put this Amendment forward, as I have said, neither to ask for a definitive reply from the Government nor to invite the Committee at this stage to come to a definitive conclusion, but because I believe that this is a matter which is of importance—which the Government have made of great importance by giving it its place in the Bill—but which can perhaps lead on to difficulties, because others will claim a right which involves a somewhat elastic definition of conscience. We may run into difficulties as a result of that. I wonder whether there is not some other way. I suggest, and I do so quite on my own responsibility and without any consultation with anybody, getting some general declaration and understanding about the position of the genuine conscientious objector. It is perfectly clear that, rightly or wrongly—and I am not at this stage making a point of this and stating it as a fact in many provisions of this Bill the Government are in fact obliging individuals to become trade union members or to become a rather peculiarly penalised kind of non-member. Perhaps this matter might be looked at by the Committee. I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: May I first express the deepest appreciation of the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has moved this Amendment. I was deeply moved by his reference to myself. But what is much more important is the truth of his statement that this country does now practise, in the case of objection to military service, the most tolerant treatment of conscientious objectors in any part of the world. I recognise that, and it is of some reference to
482
what my noble friend has said that that treatment now extends beyond religious objectors and even beyond absolute pacifists; it now extends to political objectors to a particular war. And this is a quite extraordinary tolerance on the part of the Government. I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is indicating some doubts about that. May I just say to him that I have represented at tribunals objectors who have been political objectors and who might have been prepared to take up arms in certain circumstances, but because the military service Acts applied to a particular war the ruling of the tribunal was that an objection to that particular war had the authority of the law. I tremendously appreciate the fact that in relation to military service this country has the broadest and most tolerant acceptance of the right of conscientious objection of any country in the world.
My noble friend indicated the very wide area over which recognition of conscientious objection has now been extended. One has it not only for military service; one has it, rightly or wrongly, for vaccination; one has it for the right of affirmation rather than taking an Oath. It has gone very far indeed, and in many of those cases we must find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the basis of that conscientious objection or to recognise that it has validity. But the whole case for recognising conscientious objection is that one should appreciate that an individual can have a moral sense of right or wrong even if one cannot understand it. It may so easily be that deep in his being he may have a sense in that direction and yet, logically and by all grounds of reason, it cannot be accepted. The highest form of a civilised society is to recognise the rights of an individual to disagree even if one does not understand and accept that disagreement.
I apply that to this particular case of membership of trade unions. Why anyone should have a conscientious objection to belonging to a trade union I do not begin to understand. But while I do not begin to understand it, I recognise that there are a small number who have such an objection. My noble friend Lord Shinwell remarked during his speech that he wondered where this fantastic idea had its origin. I am not sure that I can tell him. But I can tell him this: it was held

483
within the Ministry of Labour 31 years ago and it was held by Mr. Ernest Bevin, the trade union leader, who was then the Minister of Labour. I went to him on behalf of conscientious objectors, and he made to me the very proposal which is now in this Bill: the proposal that conscientious objectors should be exempted from military service without penalties if they were prepared to contribute to a charity the difference between a soldier's wage and the salary they were earning. I shall be very interested to know whether that was the beginning of this idea. In fact the Central Board for Conscientious Objectors rejected that concession on the ground that they disliked the idea of purchasing freedom for their conscience. If I may say so, I disagreed with them on that matter.
In relation to this Bill I am confident that the majority of those who would refuse to join a trade union would agree to pay a similar contribution to a charity. The number who would decline to do so would be infinitesimally small. They belong to strange little religious organisations, other wordly, which one can hardly accept in any social arrangement at all, but there they are. And I was interested, in that conversation with Mr. Ernest Bevin, to hear him say, "Yes, in our trade union we have one or two like that. We take no notice of them. We take no action against them. To do so would cause more trouble than to impose a penalty upon them. They are so few". I believe that is broadly still true. But I would just say to the Minister, in response to the appeal which has been made from our Front Bench, that it may be possible, because the number of conscientious objectors would be so small, to find a solution to this problem by the method of declaration, the method of an agreement which is not necessarily statutory. But having said that, though I cannot agree with and cannot understand, objection to membership of a trade union, nevertheless believing that wherever there is legal compulsion which involves individual decision or action there is the right for the expression of a moral sense of right or wrong, and that that right should be accepted by a provision for exemption, I welcoming the fact that there is that provision in this Bill. However, I ask the Minister whether he would consider the proposal that there might be a method
484
of dealing with this problem other than by the actual clause which is now before us.
4.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We have listened to two very thoughtful and serious speeches, and the question has been put; should the law provide statutory protection on grounds of conscience? It has been suggested that this might lead to friction, and it is suggested that it might lead to extension in some way or another, as, for instance, in the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith mentioned, of a firm that turns over to manufacturing armaments, a supermarket that starts a drinks counter. I think it is better to look at the positive side of this to start with, and the reasons why this provision is in the Bill. I think one could sum up the reasons quite simply in the two words "fairness" and "uniformity". I have mentioned uniformity, but of course there is a lot of flexibility, in the sense that in the first place the application for exemption, if that is the right word, from trade union membership on grounds of conscience will be a matter for discussion with the trade union itself. If there is no agreement, then the matter goes for decision by a tribunal and that, overall, should ensure a measure of uniformity of application and a general fairness. The noble Lord put forward the suggestion that it might be possible to do this in another way. I will willingly see whether this is possible, but perhaps the noble Lord will not mind my saying that it would have been simpler for us if he, when he put this Amendment forward, had made some suggestion for an alternative solution of this very difficult problem.
The other aspect is the question of fairness. The Bill states quite clearly that a person has a right not to join a trade union. It goes on to indicate the circumstances in which he should join a trade union or, failing that, pay contributions, either to the trade union or, if it is a matter of conscience, to a charity. It is felt that a person who has a conscientious objection to joining a trade union will probably equally have a conscientious objection to paying to union funds. The mere fact that he has a conscientious objection to joining a trade union should not disqualify him, in our view (and I think I could say also in the view of

485
noble Lords opposite) from earning a livelihood in accordance with his skills and abilities.
Therefore, what is the fair thing to do? I do not like the expression "free rider", but it illustrates this concept, that there should be an equality of contribution in this respect, whether or not a man becomes a member of the trade union, in these limited circumstances that the Bill envisages. I should have thought that this was right. I quite agree with the noble Lord who moved this Amendment that, in order to secure fairness in this case, one has to have some fairly elaborate provisions. The noble Lord may say, "Well, considering the small numbers involved, surely this is taking a sledge hammer to crush a nut". But where one is dealing with individual freedom, where one is dealing with conscience, one wants to make quite certain that one achieves the objective that one sets out to achieve. It is difficult to see how that could be done with fairness to the other workers, and in a way that will secure uniformity of treatment, except by the provisions in the Bill. The noble Lord may have some better ideas. I can only say that I am closing no doors; that we shall certainly go on looking at this, and shall be glad to hear of any ideas the noble Lord may have.
In all seriousness, we appreciate the point that the noble Lord has put, but we think this is a matter of great importance to the individuals concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, used the phrase "purchasing freedom for the conscience". I do not particularly like that expression. The test of conscience here is willingness to pay a contribution to charity. It seems to me that this is reasonable. We will gladly talk to the noble Lord if he wishes us to do so, or examine any suggestions he wishes to put forward. I appreciate the spirit in which he has moved this Amendment, which is in no way contentious, and obviously deeply felt. I am afraid that I cannot—and I do not think he expected us to—accept the Amendment at this stage. I hope the noble Lord will regard that as an adequate answer, at any rate for the time being.
While we are talking about conscience, I regret to say that I misled the Com-
486
mittee on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. There is nothing in the Bill which limits the purposes to which a union may put contributions made by non-members. The ways in which union funds are spent are, I understand. a matter for union rules, as I referred to in my answer before, and there is a Schedule that deals with union rules. I hope noble Lords will accept my apology.
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is greatly to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, even though he has put them forward in his usual very reasonable and persuasive way. Whatever the noble Lord may say, if this provision is not enshrined in law there is not the slightest doubt, to my mind, that a considerable number of trade unions will seek to evade it, and to crush the individual right of a worker to keep out of a trade union. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, mentioned that it seemed to be taking a sledgehammer to crush a nut. The older among your Lordships may remember a ditty of our youth called "It ain't gonna rain no mo'". which contained a number of rather amusing verses. One of them was:
"A peanut sitting on the railroad track,
Its heart was all a flutter.
The train came roaring round the bend—
Toot, Toot!peanut butter!"
I am afraid that the individual worker will find himself "peanut butter" unless there is statutory provision, enshrined in a code of law, for his conscientious objections. It is for this reason that I hope the Government will not weaken.
The mere fact that these conscientious objectors may be a very small number—although I think their number will be considerably more than the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, is willing to admit—is surely no reason why those very few should not be given the right of conscientious objection which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway has said, was so generously given to conscientious objectors during the two World Wars, even though there is no doubt that some of them were straining their consciences, if they existed, a long way. It is for that reason that I hope the Government will stand firm.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, moved his thoughtful Amendment in the admirable way we expect from him, and I agree that it raises a very serious subject. I agree with the Government that provision must be made. Whenever you provide for conscientious objection, you must also provide for some way of determining whether it is genuine, and the Government attempt to do that when we come to Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill.
The point that I should like to make here is that the conscientious objector may be of the type that has made a strange interpretation of a scriptural text, and thinks he cannot join any sort of organisation. I do not think the conscientious objector need be limited to that. Speaking for myself, I have not the slightest objection to a man joining a trade union, and in many instances I have advised men to do so, but that does not mean that I could not have a conscientious objection to joining a particular trade union. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who has so much knowledge of this subject—and though it was news to me, I am not prepared to say he was wrong—said that we recognised conscientious objection to taking part in a particular war. In exactly the same way, we should recognise a conscientious objection to joining a particular union. A man may be so convinced that the work of a particular union, as shown by its conduct over a period, is evil that he would do anything rather than join it. I only want to make it quite clear that, in my view, the right to be a conscientious objector is not necessarily confined to the man whom most of us would consider a "crank". I think that this is already sufficiently provided for by Clause 8, though of course we are not arguing that now. But speaking for myself—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, on this—although I do not think the numbers that will, be involved under this clause will be very large, I think they are people for whom we are bound to make provision.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: I am very grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, moved this Amendment, and I am very interested in the debate which has taken place. I hope very much that the Government will look at this question on grounds
488
of conscience. I should like to explain that when I moved a previous Amendment, which was defeated, I was not looking at grounds of conscience from this very limited point of view, because there are other possible grounds of conscience. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack accused me of being lacking in logic when I suggested that, if the General and Municipal Workers' Union refused to register—I think that that will be a very wrong thing for them to do if this Bill goes through, because it seems to me very important that they should register—on conscientious grounds I should not want any longer to be associated with the union. I agree that this raises all kinds of problems and difficulties to which I do not know the answer. I suggested the other day that it might be possible to look again at this question of grounds of conscience, to see how it can best be interpreted and applied. I think that the reference to the agency shop comes in the right place, but there are other grounds of conscience which have to be looked at and I hope that they will be looked at by the Government.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I think that the right reverend Prelate has raised a very important point here, and it becomes even more important in the context of the approved closed shop. In that context, the conscience clause is the only way out for someone who seriously objects to something which the union is doing. Something more than is already in Schedule I will have to be provided, when we get to that part of the Bill. So I wonder whether the Government will look at the possibility of widening the conscience clause generally.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The Government have been invited to reconsider this, and of course we shall reconsider it. But, on the one hand, I am scolded rather for the length of the provisions, and, on the other hand, I am invited to extend them. But that is the way of life, I am afraid, and we shall have to look at the whole matter again.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: As I said, I did not seek to press this Amendment to a Division, but merely sought to raise this important issue in a preliminary way with a view to asking the House to come to a more definitive view at a

489
later stage. I think that the brief debate which we have had has justified my action, because the speeches have illuminated some of the very real problems that are going to arise under this clause. I emphasised how important it was to ensure that a man did not genuinely have to violate his conscience, and I addressed myself particularly to those who are very widely accepted as genuine conscientious objectors, genuinely entitled to respect, and often showing respect for the trade unions. I have known of men who had a very strong religious objection, and who, because they respected their fellow workers, actually made a voluntary donation to a union. They might in future even be hailed as pioneers because they might be regarded by the Government as forerunners of the agency shop, for being willing to make a contribution equivalent to a union contribution although they did not wish to become members.
The speeches we have heard surely indicate that people will make a wider interpretation, and I am concerned because this could give rise to the whole issue of conscience becoming treated with cynicism, which would be unfortunate. For example, I can imagine individuals who might say that they had a conscientious objection to joining a trade union, because its headquarters were in a foreign country—to wit, England—and because its proceedings were exclusively conducted in a foreign language—to wit, English. Thee might be very strongly held views, but they would not be issues of conscience I can equally understand that an individual may disagree very strongly with what he believes to be the course of action of a particular trade union, of which by definition he is not a member.
The right reverend Prelate has given an example of a man who feels that his union has done something with which he profoundly disagrees. But I am extremely surprised to hear that the right reverend Prelate should think that, when a union has done something with which a member disagrees, it is appropriately dealt with—on conscience grounds, above all—by resignation. Surely, with a democratic organisation—and trade unions are far more democratic than the vast majority of noble Lords on the other side are
490
prepared to give them credit for—one stays in and tests a decision and argues to the contrary. I have seen many cases where what has started as very much a minority opinion in the trade union movement has become the majority opinion. So we are now seeing the very real difficulties to which the word "conscience" can give rise, and how widely the interpretation can go beyond what some of us would regard, and respect, as a genuinely conscientious objection. I cannot understand how one can have a conscientious objection to one trade union, but not to another. That seems like having, in the middle of a war, a conscientious objection to serving in the Brigade of Guards, but not to serving with the Lancashire Fusiliers.
LORD CONESFORD: May I put one point 10 the noble Lord? He mentioned—and it brought out very much what I had in mind—a democratic body. I would say at once to him that my inclination, even in a minority, would certainly be to do as he said and remain in the trade union and seek to make my view prevail. But there is such a thing as a trade union that has fallen under complete Communist domination, and in that case I should have a strong conscientious objection to joining. It would be a conscientious objection from my deepest convictions, and nothing would induce me to join a trade union that was, in my view, carrying out evil intentions under Communist domination.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am extremely surprised to hear the noble Lord say that and to take that particular example, because as he will know there has been an example in the recent history of this country of a trade union which fell under that kind of domination. It fell under that domination initially in a perfectly democratic way, but the domination was maintained by methods which were shown in the courts to be fraudulent and dishonest. I was most surprised to hear the noble Lord say what he did, and I wonder whether, on reconsideration, he would really sustain that point of view. We surely all know, and the trade union movement recognises, the debt which is owed to the people who did not leave the union but who remained in it and, by a very long,

491
very courageous and determined campaign, secured a change in the policy and organisation. So this illustrates, if I may say so—and I say it with great respect—the great danger of people confusing a deeply held conviction, a very strong conviction, with what one is entitled to claim is a conscientious objection to a particular form of action.
LORD CONESFORD: I do not differ from the noble Lord in thinking that many people in that trade union behaved well, and eventually a remedy was found; but what I ask him to consider is the position at an earlier stage, before a remedy has been found, when it is proposed to compel a man to join the union. That, I think, is the thing to which I should certainly have a conscientious objection, and I think many others would.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think these are matters which perhaps require a further debate. There is the question of joining and there is the question of leaving once one has joined, and I am bound to say that, in the case which the noble Lord has taken, I do not see a very deep distinction between the two. But this exchange illustrates the difficulties that can arise and into which one can get when dealing with what was originally intended as a concept to protect people who have a particular consistent pattern of conduct which shows in every aspect of their lives. One does not want them to be required to do something which genuinely conflicts with their deepest ethical convictions, but one has to draw what I agree may be a difficult line, but what is nevertheless a very real line, between such people and those with a very deeply held conviction on some particular political or social policy. I think this demonstrates the danger that, first of all, we run the risk of claims being established on grounds of conscience which could lead to a degree of cynicism about conscience—the kind of cases I quoted of possible claims which might be made against foreign organisations.
There are the difficulties, too, which can arise if people feel that they have a proper justification, though not on grounds of conviction. Conviction is important, but surely there is a line which
492
divides conviction from conscience; which divides people who, on grounds of conviction, feel strongly about a particular trade union situation, and those (I should have thought very limited number of people) who take the position that, irrespective of the union, irrespective of its leadership, irrespective of its policy, as a fundamental ethical matter they cannot join an association of that sort. Really, I think we shall get ourselves into difficulty, and we shall contribute some difficulties to industrial relations, if we do not try to clarify this point.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: I think I ought really to postpone this, but the remarks the noble Lord made in suggesting that my best method would be to stay in the union—I should certainly try to persuade my branch secretary to do what he could—led me to think: Is this the attitude that you would approve, of the T.U.C. advising their constituent unions not to join in the Commission on Industrial Relations? Their advice, it seems to me, runs away from something which is essential to the working of this Bill.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: It is probably the sense of the Committee that in general we have pursued this matter as far as we reasonably can at this stage, and, that being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 53, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: On the Motion which has just been put to the Committee, I should like to offer some observations in the light of our discussion. As I said earlier, this is the first appearance in this Bill of the agency shop, and this again is an issue to which we shall have to return. But here I must say that my noble friends and I feel, and have little hesitation in feeling and saying, that the agency shop is not a device which we believe ought to be introduced into the industrial relations of this country. If indeed the Government intend to press forward with this concept, we shall, of course, as the discussions on the Bill proceed, have to try to make ameliorations and modifications to minimise the inadequacies and unsatisfactory characteristics

493
of this device. But we cannot pretend that we like it.
The agency shop really derives from this unwise principle that the Government have so insistently pressed, and so unnecessarily pressed, of erecting into a constitutional right, almost, the entitlement not to join a trade union. Having taken up that unwise and unnecessary position—because to assert the right to Join a trade union does not of itself lead to any kind of compulsion at all—they leave the issue of whether people do or do not join, do or do not exercise their right to join, a neutral one; but having asserted the right not to be a trade unionist, the Government then had to face the brutal facts. They had to face the fact that, first of all, this would produce, as they themselves have recognised, a bonus, a justification, for those individuals who were willing to accept the results of other people's effort and the benefits derived from the spending of other people's money. Therefore, having made the initial error, they have had to involve themselves in these increasingly complicated arrangements for the agency shop and in the increasingly complicated provisions to govern the closed shop.
They have withdrawn very far, of course, from their fine assertion that nobody is under any compulsion of any kind whatsoever to join a trade union. They have had to withdraw from that because the facts of industrial life as they are recognised by both sides of industry mean that the individual right of decision, the individual complete freedom of decision, has to be qualified. Almost every right which we enjoy is not only an individual right but a social right. Every assertion and exercise of a right by an individual in a greater or less degree has its effect upon the exercise of the rights of his follow citizens, and we have to try to find a proper balance.
The Government have made their own task far more difficult by the way they have insisted on drafting and sticking to Clause 5. I must frankly say that to assert, on the one hand, this great principle of freedom, and then go on with the successive degrees of qualification, is a pretty nonsensical arrangement, and might in the case of some people he regarded as a dishonest arrangement. For what is being said to the worker in the agency
494
shop is: "Yes, you are perfectly free to join or not to join a trade union. But if you do not join you must in effect pay what is probably the basic contribution that the union imposes by its rules on its members. But, of course, you will not receive the individual, as distinct from the collective, services which the union provides. You will be a contributor; you will be taxed by the union; but you will have no representation in the union. You will not have an individual service from the union." If the union assists with the protection of an individual's dependents if he should be killed or injured, as do most unions, then the services given, the legal representation and so on, which are of great value to the individual worker, will not be available to a man under this agency shop agreement.
That is a very strange way of giving a man a right. If we are going to follow this method of giving people rights, then any Government of any kind in any sort of regime can subscribe very happily to the most liberal declaration of human rights. They can say, "You have complete freedom of speech, and freedom of every kind, provided that you do not mind if after the first time you exercise this freedom you find yourself in prison for the rest of your life." I am not suggesting that benevolent noble Lords on the Benches opposite are in that position. But really there is an element of humbug in saying that you are safeguarding a person's rights and then imposing a penalty on him when he takes you seriously.
This clause comes before the Committee in a rather new form. Some parts of it are old friends and we have down Amendments to delete them; but other parts are new. The change introduced by the new clause is that an employers' association can now enter into agency shop agreements, whereas previously this was restricted to one or more individual employers. This is not altogether a new idea. If I am not mistaken, the Engineering Employers' Federation have been pressing for a modification of this sort since the Consultative Document was published in October of last year. Can the noble Lord when he comes to reply say why the Government have now met their views after such a period of resistance? It would be useful if he could

495
develop the effects of this change in industrial terms. Is the change being introduced so that employers collectively can enter into agency agreements at a national level for the purpose of negotiating matters of industry-wide concern? Or is it being done so that employers' associations can at national level enter into agency shop agreements that will be binding at the local level? Or is the intention twofold? I am bound to say that it seems more likely that it is the second consideration that is principally in mind.
Does this mean, for example, that the Engineering Employers' Federation could, at national level, enter into agency agreements that would mean, say, that all welders employed by the firms in the Federation should belong to one specified union, or in lieu of membership should pay contributions to that union? If that is the intention, then I should have thought that quite a degree of disruption and/or rearrangement would ensue. Perhaps this sort of thing is not what the Government intend, but it seems to me that it would follow. The Engineering Employers' Association normally negotiate with the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions over the whole of the industry. I suppose that, theoretically, there can be an agency agreement in the terms provided by the Amendment between the Engineering Employers' Federation on the one hand and the Confederation on the other; but this seems to me merely to be putting existing arrangements on a more formal and legal basis, for there is nothing in the Bill at present (and there was nothing in the Bill as previously drafted, as I understand it) that would disrupt the present arrangements. It would therefore be useful to know why, if my presumption is correct, it is necessary to provide in the statute for formal ratification of what already seems to both sides to be a satisfactory bargaining arrangement. I make the digression that I suppose the Confederation would be eligible for registering as a trade union but only if all the constituent unions were registered. If one or more of them were not, then the Confederation would not be able to register as a trade union.
These are some of the questions which are bound to arise in our minds, and which lead me to put a point to the Government that I hope that they will
496
answer now or later. I began to put this question during our discussion of the Amendment to Clause 5 to omit that subsection which gave the right to be a non-unionist. We are bound to continue pressing this sort of question as the proceedings go on. What really are the Government aiming at? We have generalities by the bucketful about bringing law and order and all sorts of other desirable things into industrial relations; but we cannot get answers to the simple practical questions that really matter. I put again the question that I put the other evening: is it the desire of the Government to promote collective bargaining? If so, I think they are going an odd way about it. Is it their desire to see the present arrangements, which apply over the greater part of industry, gradually (or evenly speedily) disappear, and to replace them with an over-all pattern of agency shops, agency agreements and closed shop agreements? We really ought to know. Do the Government regard the agency shop system as superior to the voluntary collective bargaining which at the moment covers most of industry? Or are they neutral on that point? Do they think that the agency shop is rather an unsatisfactory substitute for the present arrangements, the agency shop agreement being necessitated by this doctrinaire desire to assert the right to be a non-unionist?
These are questions that we are bound to put. It is not clear whether the Government want to see the existing arrangements replaced by agency shop agreements or whether they are quite neutral on the matter. I am bound to say that it seems to me there are many features of the Bill which, if it is enacted in its present form, will make it difficult, even in those places where the arrangements are working to everybody's satisfaction, for the voluntary arrangements to remain unimpaired and unaltered. We really ought to know from the Government what they are aiming at. Are they aiming at covering industry broadly by agency shops and closed shops, or are they satisfied with the voluntary form of organisation, where that is working well and to the satisfaction of both sides? Here again I do not expect definitive answers to these questions. We are extremely reasonable people on this side of the Committee;

497
but we do expect, if I may say so, some indication that the Government understand the anxieties and the questions which we believe, for the guidance of people on both sides of industry, ought to be more clearly answered.
I am bound to conclude with this point: that whatever advantages or disadvantages the agency agreement principle may have—and I am inclined to think that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages—it is profoundly bad from one point of view. It does nothing to encourage—and on the whole does something to discourage—the ordinary individual worker from believing he ought to play a part in the collective regulation of his industry and to play that part through his trade union. The Government, and the noble Lord in particular, always say, "We understand, of course, why the trade unions object to the free rider'". Of course we object to the "free rider" but I must emphasise very strongly that so far as the non-members are concerned, I believe it is true of the vast majority of trade unions that it is not just their money that is wanted. Indeed, on this I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell (and I speak only for myself) and shall be very surprised if self-respecting trade unions will be very happy about receiving money from people who do not care to take up the obligations and the rights of membership.
Trade unions are not insurance societies. The trade union is not a vast firm of solicitors which collects money. A trade union is a living fellowship of workers, and if it loses that concept it loses a great deal of its value to the social and industrial life of this country. The fundamental reason why I object to this agency shop concept is that it puts all the emphasis on the financial contribution which the worker must make, and it leaves out of account the fact that we (and when I say "we" I am talking of the community here and not of the trade union movement alone) want to see workers in their trade unions, because that is the only way in which the individual worker can have any degree of influence upon the way the industry in which he works is conducted and the way its affairs are collectively regulated. Trade unions do not want to be treated as some kind of business agency which is satisfied with having the shillings—I should really
498
say new pence—it does not want; because what we want is the contribution that every individual worker has it in his power to give to make the industry in which he works a better place.
5.33 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not want in any way to interfere with the way in which the Committee wishes to discuss this subject, but I would point out I am not complaining in the slightest about the remarks made by the noble Lord, because this is a preliminary fusillade, if I may put it in that way. But the main debate on the agency shop ought, of course, to come on Clause 10, when we come to it; and I hope the noble Lord would agree with me that this is so. I am quite prepared to answer the specific questions which he asked, but I would ask tie Committee to exercise restraint at this stage because it would not he reasonable to debate the broad principle of the agency shop several times over when there are specific provisions from Clause 10 on which to deal with this matter. I am sure this would be the advice that would be given if there were a chair here which gave advice.
The noble Lord has asked me the specific question as to why we have made these changes in this Amendment, and that is a question which is, of course, very relevant to the new clause. It was not the Engineering Employers' Federation who asked for this: they pressed for the extension of bargaining right provisions to the employers' associations and the like; it was the recognition and bargaining rights, which are the preliminaries to agency shop agreements, for which they pressed. The reason for this was that we believed the words, "one or more employers", when we first tabled the Bill, would have allowed agency shop agreements between employers' associations and unions; but apparently this gives rise to legal difficulties about the word "agent". Some federations, including the Shipping Federation, have asked for the extension of the provision specifically to employers' associations in order to leave no doubt about the intention and application of the provisions. The noble Lord also asked a specific question about whether this was intended to alter the whole area of industry or particular plants. The answer is, both: it could cover the one

499
and it could cover the other. It depends primarily on the recognition provisions in each case. But before you can get an agency shop arrangement you must have a condition in which the employer recognises the particular union for the descriptions of workers concerned. It does not follow that it will cover the whole area for which the trade union represents those descriptions of workers. It can be limited or it can be wide. This is a pretty flexible provision, as I think we shall see when we come to Clause 10. Perhaps, with that short explanation, the Committee may now be prepared to let us have this new clause.
LORD SHINWELL: In almost every Amendment and on every clause in the process of our deliberations we have been advised, "What is the use of deploying further arguments? Had we not better wait until we come to the subsequent clause?" We have now had another example. The only reply to my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith has been, "Wait until we reach Clause 10, and then we can get down to brass tacks and we can get our teeth into the argument about the agency shop." Is that what the noble Lord said?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? The reason for this lies in the structure of the Bill. We start talking about the rights of the individual. Here in this Amendment we are concerned with how the rights of the individual are affected by the agency shop. But how agency shops can be formed, and in what circumstances, and so on, we shall come to when we reach the provisions in Clause 10.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Lord might have waited until I had reached some subsequent sentences and observations; I was not complaining about him. I am concerned about the chronological order of debate. We want an orderly debate—to take point No. 1, point No. 2, and so on. That is what we should have done. The noble Lord has just told us that in this particular clause we are dealing with one aspect of the problem. When we come to Clause 10 we shall have to cover the ground again, because it is quite impossible to divorce one aspect of the problem from the others. They are
500
all telescoped, whether we like it or not. But that was not the reason why I rose to address your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith asked the Government what they were aiming at. I should have thought that by this time, because of our somewhat prolonged deliberations, and in particular the long period of discussion and disputation that has taken place at the end of the corridor in the other place, we should be able to make up our minds about what the Government are driving at.
I put it in a sentence. Noble Lords opposite may disagree and dislike what I say, but I believe that the Government want to curb the trade unions. They may have good reason in view of the various episodes, events, turbulences, wild-cat strikes and all the difficulties which have occurred in the last few years, but they want to curb the power of the trade union movement; it is as simple as that. I know that sometimes noble Lords on the other side of the Committee—as indeed have right honourable gentlemen and honourable Members in the other place—have declared that their purpose is to strengthen the trade unions. They have a remarkably strange way of reaching that objective. Again, that is not the reason why I rose to speak; I want to put a question to my noble friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith.
I understand that he rose to ask a question to ascertain the views of noble Lords opposite, but at the same time to initiate a debate on the Motion whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. I am anxious to make my contribution in this matter about whether it is desirable or otherwise to have the agency shop, the closed shop, and all the other paraphernalia that has been injected into this remarkable piece of legislation, or proposed legislation. But, frankly, I do not see much purpose in deploying arguments at this stage, and I will give the reason why. What is the purpose of it, unless at the end of the debate we are going to indicate our resentment, our disagreement, on what is undoubtedly a fundamental issue, a vital part of this potential legislation—and divide?
After a previous discussion, when I thought that we had without doubt gained the better of the argument, my noble friends on the Opposition Front

501
Bench decided not to proceed and to withdraw the Amendment under discussion. Either these Amendments have been carefully and meticulously examined in order to ensure that they are worth while presenting to the Committee, or they are put down simply for the purpose of a preliminary discussion. I like to know where I am in matters of this sort. Having had a long discussion on the previous Amendment, it seemed to me that we ought to have displayed our resentment and gone into the Division Lobby. If we are going to argue about the defects, errors of judgment and the like, embodied in this clause, which is now Clause 5, I want to know whether we are going to divide at the end. If we are merely going to ask some questions, I do not want to proceed at all—not at this stage. I say that because I am wondering when we are going to come to some conclusion about this matter.
I noticed the other day—I discovered this only by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT—that the debate on this Bill continued one morning until a quarter to two. That is not the way to conduct proceedings in an Assembly of this kind. We had a lot of it in the other place, in my experience over the years, but I expect something different from this august Assembly; a more orderly proceeding; a more logical approach; the presentation of a case in as few words as necessary, and then for noble Lords to come to a decision. But that is not what we are doing, and I want to know whether we are going to end this somewhat sordid and squalid affair before next Christmas. I want to know whether it is going to interfere with my holiday period. I think we ought to know. Can we get some conclusion about this? That is the question which should be addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to find out what is in his mind. Perhaps the noble Lord would ascertain the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who I know—although he regards himself only as a legal luminary with expertise on legal matters—can spread himself all over the place when he is in the mood. The noble and learned Lord might be asked for his opinion also. Can we get some opinion about this before we proceed with our discusison?
502
On the other hand, if my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, supported by their Back Benchers, are determined to proceed to a Division, I am quite prepared to take part in the discussion and expose this iniquity of the proposed agency shop and the closed shop which has been injected into this potential piece of legislation. I observe that the Chairman is looking round at me and asking himself how long I am going on——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear. Hear!
LORD SHINWELL: Exactly. I was right; I could see it in his eyes. I will go on as long as I feel that I am in the mood to go on; but that is not why I rose to address your Lordships. It was for the purpose of ascertaining not only the opinion of the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, but also the opinions of my own colleagues. What are we driving at? I heard one noble Lord say this afternoon that we are seeking co-operation with the Government. Well, I am not. They are a nice lot of people, I agree, and they are very friendly people; but I do not want to co-operate with them in matters of this sort. I want to oppose them, tooth and nail; hook, line and sinker. That is why we are here. But ought we not to be properly informed so that we know what we are going to do in the subsequent discussions? I am sorry to have intervened in this fashion, but I have been sitting here wondering what it is all about, and it is about time we were told what is the intention. We know what the Government's aim is: what is our aim? Are we going to fight the Government every inch of the way? If so, I am with my noble friends. But if we are not going to fight the Government, I do not see that there is much purpose in preceeding.
5.50 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, did not answer the pertinent question put by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith: what is the reason for this new clause. Is it that the Government are not satisfied with the present voluntary basis on which trade unions operate? If so, what is wrong with it? Where are the weaknesses? Why are we not told before we are asked to approve such radical changes? Is it that the trade unions are

503
too powerful? Surely we are entitled to ask that, failing any reason being given. If they are too powerful and if they exercise their power in an unreasonable way, we should be told. We have been assured, times out of number, that the Government supporters and the Government as a whole are seeking, somehow, to strengthen the trade unions. In what way does the movement want strengthening? Where are the weaknesses? Surely these are questions that we are entitled to ask. We have been told that we have the finest trade unions in the world—I think it was the Minister of Employment who said that only a little while ago. If that be so, why introduce Clause 5 in this way, and why introduce this particular clause dealing with the rights of the individual to join the union? The unions and the organised workers do not seek legislation for that. They will do it; they will join into organised ranks. They fought that battle very many years ago, and they have gone from strength to strength. as the Donovan Commission Report indicates.
Therefore this question of the right to join a trade union is a lot of baloney and nonsense; let us face it. The men on the shop floor will tell anyone whether they are going to organise or are not going to organise. I have no idea why the Government should attempt to make so many definitions of these rights, because when we get to the point of trying to define this and define that, we know how great are the difficulties that arise. Therefore I just cannot understand the reason, unless we return to that old theme: that it is a question of bashing the unions and the Government are determined to do it. If not, tell me why. We have asked this question repeatedly. The Trades Union Congress have wanted discussions with the Government, and what has been the Government's reply?—" Accept the basic principles of what we tell you, and we are prepared to listen to what you have to say." It has not been a question of, "Let us meet and see whether there is anything wrong. Can we make a joint effort?"
I thought it was very intriguing, having in mind that line of approach of the Government, when we heard the noble Lord who was just speaking on behalf of the Government state quite categoric-
504
ally that the reason why it was necessary to bring in this new clause dealing with employers' associations was that the request had come from the employers' associations; but still they did not talk with the T.U.C. boys. They said: "Let us discuss these things in principle", but according to the noble Lord's own words it was a request which came from the employers' associations—in other words they were prepared to accept and discuss in principle these items of the Bill, yet refused to do so with the T.U.C. It just is not good enough to speak about industrial relations in this way.
When this Bill ultimately becomes an Act—and I think it will be a long time before it does—when the Government ultimately decide to implement it, I am afraid they will find that both sides of industry will be involved in so many difficulties, not of their own seeking, that it will not be in the best interests of our country as a whole. I think that Clause 5 and everything it stands for is bad, and I sincerely hope that our Front Bench is going to vote against it.
LORD PARGITER: In view of the fact that we are unlikely to get a straight answer to the question my noble friend has just put, as to the reason for Clause 5, possibly I can give him the answer as to why Clause 5 appears. We all know that before this Bill was introduced in the Tory propaganda up and down the country the closed shop was anathema, the one thing they were determined not to have; they were going to have a free-for-all, with no question of a closed shop. They called it an agency shop in order to get over calling it a closed shop, because they do not like the words, but it comes to pretty well the same thing. They found of course, when they got down to drafting legislation, that in certain industries they could not do without it, that the very function of the industry made it necessary that there should be some formal kind of organisation which could be dealt with. Therefore, we have Clause 5 which provides for an agency shop, and the further Amendment which brings in the associations, because in certain cases they cannot deal with it without certain associations.
These are the facts of life so far as the Tories are concerned. They have been driven to this, not because they like it, but because their original propaganda was so

505
out of touch with the facts of life—we do not expect Members on the other side to know much about the trade union movement or closed shops, and things of that kind. The facts of life came very clearly not only from the trade union side, not only in another place, but to an extent that the Government, much against their will, have been forced to accept the principle of trade union recognition in a closed shop form. Those are the real reasons why the Tories have got this clause in the Bill. They will not want to admit it, but so far as I can see that happens to be near the truth of the matter.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I understand we are now discussing that this proposed new clause stand part. Consequently, I ask the question, why was this clause introduced? We are told in the rubric the purpose behind the moving of this new clause by the noble Lord opposite namely
"Modification of rights by agency shop agreements."
But if one reads the words at the beginning of the Bill—I will not read them out because most of them are in Clause 5—the right is there given to form independent unions, and there is evolved the system of agency shops.
I pointed out earlier to-day the illogicality of this Bill. This sort of thing is happening all along. First of all—and I have never before seen such a thing in my Parliamentary career—the first clause mixes ethics and jurisprudence. That makes it an impossible clause; it should have been a Preamble. To-day, every time we ask a 64,000 dollar question, "What does this mean?"—and I have used the phrase that this is like the South Sea Bubble—we are told: "Agree to this, because later on we will tell you what it is all about, when we teach you what the agency shop is." The entire Bill is like this in its phraseology and draftsmanship.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has just pointed out, Clause 10 is miles away from the clause we are discussing to-day; consequently, this Committee are in the position of all the time talking all round the question. This is because of the
506
courtesy and decency of your Lordships. In another place we should be ruled out of order in 90 per cent. of the speeches which are being made on this matter. But your Lordships are unable anyway, to keep yourselves in Parliamentary order in this discussion because of the distances between the relevant parts of the Bill.
When I am asked to-day to approve of this clause standing part, I am against it. I will not talk about the agency shop now. The opportunity will arise to talk about it when we reach Clause 10. I want to try to be fair to the Committee, and not to bore them. I think it would be unfair practice on my part to discuss Clause 10, which is an effort to undermine the traditional trade union movement, by inventing the agency shop. We shall discuss the agency shop later on, a few months from now.
Therefore I sincerely hope that we on this side of the Committee, without any asperity, will indicate to the trade union movement that we feel this modification has been discussed with the employers. I hope that the question my noble friend has asked will be answered. I want to put a corollary to that matter. Maybe my noble friend did. If this modification was discussed with the C.B.I. or with the employers, was it discussed with the T.U.C? I should like to know that as well. In any case, if not (and even if it were) I feel sincerely that we on this side of the Committee should vote against this modification of Clause 5 as presented to us to-day.
6.0 p.m.
Loan DRUMALBYN: I hope that I may now be able to satisfy noble Lords on the points they have raised. Let us first get this clear. We believe in principle that. whatever is right or wrong, the pre-entry closed shop is wrong. We hold that view firmly, because it will deny a man the right to employment if he is not a member of a particular trade union. The second point is this. In general, we think it is right that a worker should have the right, as between his employer and himself, to chose which union to belong to or to belong to no union at all. These are fundamental rights.
But, of course, that does not mean that he has the right to join any trade union at all. This is a matter between him and

507
the union and also a matter for arrangement between his employer and the trade union.
Noble Lords have made a certain amount of play with the fact that we have given way on this. This was always envisaged, that there would be circumstances in which it would be right, where it was appropriate in agreement between an employer and trade unions, that there should be an arrangement under which workers would have to belong to a trade union or else pay equivalent contributions. What we are here discussing is simply whether your Lordships want the right to belong or not to belong to a union to be absolute, or whether there are circumstances in which an employer may or must insist that all workers of specified descriptions should belong to a union or else pay contributions equivalent to union dues. I cannot think that noble Lords would want to disagree with that as an objective, however it is achieved. We shall come to the way in which it is achieved when we discuss Clause 10.
The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, asks, broadly, what is wrong with the present system. My goodness! We set up a Royal Commission years ago—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, is sitting here and he told us what was wrong with the present system. Basically what we are seeking to do—I am not talking about the means—is to achieve improved plant bargaining, better procedure agreements and the removal of causes of friction. These are things with which we would all agree.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I think it is an unfair practice to drag in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan. Did he suggest the agency shop and its inclusion in Clause 5?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No. I know that one gets tired at listening to what is said, but I think that the noble Lord did not listen to what I was saying. Here we are simply asking noble Lords to agree to the principle of the agency shop, which will mean that workers do not have an absolute right to refuse to belong
to a trade union and should either belong to a union or else pay an equivalent contribution. I do not think that noble Lords would feel inclined to disagree to the clause on those terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, asked the reason for the new clause. I hope that I have given him the reason. It is simply that it was thought better to separate out what are called the modifications, the particular circumstances, in which a man would not have an absolute right of joining a union into a separate clause and, secondly, to ensure the original intention that employers' associations should have the same power of dealing with agency shop agreements in conjunction with the trade unions as have individual employers. We thought that the original phrase "employer or employers" covered that situation, but it was pointed out to us that it might not do so. We looked into it and agreed with the observation that was made. But to say that that was because we were negotiating on basic principles with particular federations, with the C.B.I. and all the rest, whereas we did not negotiate with the T.U.C., is an absolute travesty of the facts, as the noble Lord knows very well indeed.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: We appreciate the point of the noble Lord that the agency shop as a conception is really embodied in Clause 10 of the Bill but, in view of the way the Government have chosen to construct the Bill, we encounter it for the first time in this clause. As I think I made clear when I addressed the Committee, following our return to Amendment No. 53, this is something we may seek to modify in subsequent proceedings, but we cannot pretend that we like the agency shop or the proposals in this new clause. In these circumstances, I have no alternative but to invite my noble friends to divide the Committee.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 132; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Abergavenny, M.

Amory, V.

Barrington, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Airedale, L.

Barnby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Garner, L.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Molson, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gisborough, L.

Monck, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Blackburn, Bp.

Glasgow, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Braye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Brecon, L.

Gray, L.

Negent of Guildford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

Ogmore, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Burgh, L.

Hacking, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Byers, L.

Hailes, L.

Reading, M.

Carrington, L.

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

Reay, L.

Chesham, L.

Remnant, L.

Clwyd, L.

Harcourt, V.

Roberthall, L.

Colgrain, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rockley, L.

Conesford, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rothes, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

St. Helens, L.

Courtown, E.

Hood, V.

St. Just, L.

Cowley, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hurcombe, L.

Sandford, L.

Croft, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Savile, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ilford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Daventry, V.

Inchyra, L.

Sempill, Ly.

De Clifford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Kilmany, L.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Dudley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Dundonald, E.

Lloyd, L.

Sudeley, L.

Dunleath, L.

Lothian, M.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Templemore, L.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tenby, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

MacAndrew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

Falkland, V.

McFadzean, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ferrier, L.

Massereene and Ferrard V.

Wise, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Sainsbury, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balogh, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Segal, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Birk, Bs.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Snow, L.

Brown, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Peddie, L.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.18 p.m.
Clause 6 [Pre-entry closed shop agreements to be void]:
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("save that the Secretary of State may provide for the
510
exemption of certain agreements from the provisions of this subsection through affirmative resolution of Parliament, and that such agreements as exempted, will be legally enforceable contracts not subject to subsection 1(b) of Clause 32 of this Act. Such agreements exempted by the Secretary of State shall be subject to investigation by the Monopolies Commission prior to an exemption resolution being laid before Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the

511
Marshalled List in the names of my noble friends and myself. At this stage of the Bill this Amendment should be regarded as a probing Amendment. I have not yet taken the step of putting down the Amendments which would be consequential upon its passing, and I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I think that in the middle of the Amendment there is somewhat slapdash drafting. However, I think that its purpose is clear. It is common ground, I think, in most parts of the Committee that the principle which the Government are putting forward against the closed shop, and which basically we support, needs one or two, and possibly more, exceptions. This became obvious in another place when the case for Equity as one of these exceptions was put forward. Another union for which a case was put forward strongly was the Seamen's Union. The Government have gone a certain way towards meeting these points by tabling the new Clause 16 and Schedule 1.
I do not think that this new clause is entirely satisfactory. There are fairly obvious objections to it. First of all, there is no provision for the union to apply unilaterally for the approval and enforcement of the closed shop; and it is to be an unfair practice to put pressure on an employer or an association of employers to induce them to join in an application. There is no provision or procedure whereby an agreement can be made binding on non-member employers; any approved closed shop agreement can be made only with the registered association of employers; and it is far from clear that employers' associations are to become registered associations under the Act. These are defects that I think are in Clause 16 and Schedule 1. There are a number of Amendments down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and one or two other noble Lords which I think would go a long way to rectify these defects.
We are putting forward what we think is a simpler solution, rather than these long new clauses and schedules and the various Amendments which will be necessary to them. We are putting forward in this Amendment the proposition that the Secretary of State may provide for the exemption of certain agreements from the provisions which ban the pre-entry
512
closed shop by Affirmative Resolution of Parliament. Obviously, there will have to be regulations, and some consequential Amendments following on this. We think it is basically a much simpler solution. It was put forward and slightly discussed in another place, but the Government spokesman did not choose to answer on this when he was replying to Amendments that were being discussed together. It is for this reason that we put forward the Amendment.
I can see that one of the major objections to this which may come from the Government is that a future Labour Secretary of State, if they are prepared to envisage the possibility of such a thing, may decide to exempt many trade unions from this part of the Bill for no particularly good reason. We have put in two provisions in this respect which we think are both safeguards and deterrents. The first is that any application to be exempted from this part of the Bill should have to go before the Monopolies Commission, to make certain that it is not establishing a monopoly situation of labour against the national interest. At the same time, we are hoping to lay down—and this is where I think I may have included an error of drafting in the Amendment—that any bargaining contracts entered into by a union which is exempt from this part of the Bill, and therefore has an approved pre-entry closed shop, should be enforceable; that they should not be able to take advantage of the let-out which they will have and claim that it is not enforceable by agreement.
The reason for this is that, first, we think it is a deterrent for those unions which would be ant to claim exemption on unnecessary grounds; and secondly, it seems to us logical that, where you have a pre-entry closed shop, and therefore every person involved in the agreement is a member of the union, the union should be able to bargain on their behalf completely; it represents them, and therefore is entitled to say: "This is what we all believe." There is a much greater case for enforceability where there is a closed shop than where there is not. On the whole, we think that enforceability of contracts is one of the weaker parts of the Bill, and we have said so often. But in this case we think it could be used as a safeguard.
I know that we all, including the Government, want to do the best we can by Equity, the Seamen's Union, and any other union which may find itself in this peculiar position of really needing a closed shop. The Government have gone a long way towards this already. Lord Archibald's Amendments will, I think, improve the position a lot. But I should like the Government to have a look at this proposal which we nut forward, to see whether it does not have some merits as being a simpler solution to the whole problem. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: As the noble Lord has explained, this Amendment certainly has far-reaching effects on the Bill as it stands. It is really an attempt to modify the provisions terminating the pre-entry closed shop. I think the Amendment has two limbs to it. First, it gives the Secretary of State power to grant exemption of agreements; and secondly, it incorporates the Monopolies Commission. I should like to consider those as two separate things.
The exemptions would be proposed by the Secretary of State, and this would give him a pretty clear run to use his discretion on whether to grant exemptions or to withhold them. Admittedly, he would have to submit his proposals to the Monopolies Commission, and thereafter they would have to come to Parliament for Affirmative Resolution. But it gives the Secretary of State, and him alone, the discretion whether the exemption should be granted or not. The Amendment provides no criteria on which such exemptions should be granted: indeed, the decisions could be—and I think the noble Lord hinted that they might be—political decisions. This of course would make the whole Amendment at variance with the general concept of the Bill, which aims to make the Bill—once it becomes law—subject to civil law, and to be interpreted by the courts, and that the Government should not interfere. For those reasons, we feel that it would be undesirable for the Secretary of State to have these particular powers.
Then the noble Lord suggests in his Amendment that such exemptions should be subject to the Monopolies Commission, as a sort of longstop against any extreme examples. But the absence of criteria for exemption would make it
514
difficult for the Monopolies Commission to comment on this. They could only offer evidence to the Secretary of State, and eventually to Parliament, of the likely effect of the closed shop versus the consequences of having no such agreement. They could not properly formulate a view whether the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages. I suggest that possibly the biggest objection—if one can call it an objection, in the nicest sense of the term—to the idea that the Monopolies Commission should be incorporated is that it insinuates that the principles applying to the assessment of commercial monopoly power might be the same as the principles which apply to the assessment of labour monopoly power. I would think therefore that the Monopolies Commission is really an unsuitable body to be used in this particular way. Both sides of industry would realise, as a result of this, if this Amendment were to be passed, that real power lay with the Secretary of State, and they would inevitably try to secure his support for their particular case. It is our desire, once this Bill becomes law, to keep the Government out of these arrangements, and for that reason I would hope that the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: If I might comment briefly on this proposed Amendment, we have a certain sympathy with the reasons which, so far as I can understand him, have led Lord Beaumont of Whitley and his noble friends to put it upon the Paper. In particular, we, too, are very much concerned about the position of Equity which, although the Government appear to think they have gone some way towards meeting their difficulties, is nevertheless still, I have just been assured, extremely anxious and concerned. They have made full representations; I do not think any union could have done more to try to inform the Government of the true nature of their problems. As they have pointed out, unless they can have some special arrangements of a pre-entry nature it will be impossible for them to carry out the casting arrangements which are current in the industry, and in certain parts of the film industry, too, which have the entire support, as I understand it, both of the management and of the unions.

515
We are dealing in the theatrical and cinematograph professions with very badly overcrowded professions with high unemployment. There are no objective qualifications for being a theatre or film actor other than being engaged by an employer, and if one does not have some kind of regulation by agreement in the profession there will be a completely chaotic condition. This is not only in the star parts in the play or film—they can more or less look after themselves—but many actors and actresses depend for their bread and butter on having a fair chance of employment, and unless the employers and the unions are allowed to make arrangements for this they feel that the whole arrangements that they have built up over the years will crumble. They do not, as I understand it, feel happy that the proposals in Clause 16, and various other proposals, are really going to be sufficient. They are particularly concerned about this Clause 6, and although we shall be coming later to some proposed Amendments, the Amendments will make it even more difficult for them. If anybody has been refused a job and can call this clause in aid, it will make it even more difficult to have any ordered entry into the profession, or any ordered arrangements for employment. I know that we shall be discussing Equity and their problems again, but I think it is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has mentioned them in this Amendment, to bring them in here too. We feel that the Liberal Amendment has some substance.
On the other hand we feel some sympathy with the Government on the suggestion of bringing in the Monopolies Commission. We feel that in any case there is going to be enough interference with trade union arrangements in all parts of this Bill, but to bring in the Monopolies Commission, which was established in quite a different context and for different purposes, does not seem to us to be entirely appropriate. We can appreciate the difficulties of noble Lords who have supported this Amendment. They feel that there should be some kind of investigation, some kind of safeguard, but I think the problem they had to face is just inherent in the Bill. If one is going to have all this kind of statutory regulation and limitation of agreements which can be voluntarily reached by both
516
sides, one is under some obligation to think up some equally complicated mechanism for countering some of the proposals in the Bill. Before we dispose of this Amendment we would like to have some further information from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about the position of Equity in relation to this Amendment.
LORD SHINWELL: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in moving this Amendment was primarily concerned about Equity or the theatrical profession. I rather suspect that he was concerned about the possibility of a collective agreement, an agreement between an employers' organisation, or an employer and a trade union, or a body or group of trade unions which might be against the national interest and might assume a monopolistic form. I gather that is what is in his mind. Obviously the reference to submission to the Monopolies Commission seems to indicate that that is his purpose. it is possible, if this is what he has in mind, that an agreement could be entered into, one of a collective character, which would be subversive of the national interest. It could be an agreement between the members of the printing unions, and particularly newspaper organisations or a group of newspapers, which might lead to some form of monopoly to the detriment of other sections of the newspaper industry. That would be one example.
Indeed, for several years in the past suggestions have been made of the possibility of employers' organisations coming to agreements of a collective character with trade union organisations, irrespective of the needs of consumers. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is anxious to avoid that, if that is his purpose. Quite frankly, I think that asking that there should be a submission to the Monopolies Commission is asking too much. This Bill is cluttered with all kinds of organisations—industrial courts, industrial tribunals, commissions of various kinds, and no doubt as a result of the creation of a central commission there will be various regional commissions and the like, and in the long run there are the courts of justice to be taken into account. I think that is as much as the country can stand, and to add to that this proliferation of organisations responsible for supervising the

517
implementation of this legislation would be asking too much; it is going too far.
I should be inclined to advise my noble friends to support the purpose of the Amendment if the intention is to prevent the formation of collective agreements which could be subversive of the national interest. I mean by that something which might affect the export trade, for example, or lead to an increase in imports to the disadvantage of our balance of payments, or perhaps more likely the raising of prices which would be detrimental to the interests of the general body of consumers. It can be left to the Secretary of State, or some department of the Secretary of State, to ascertain whether any item in the collective agreements is inclined to be subversive to the national interest. If the Secretary of State of a Government Department, like the old Ministry of Labour or the Board of Trade, does not have the ability, wit and knowledge to deal with situations of that kind, then the matter can be raised in Parliament.
Reference is made to an Affirmative Resolution. We have to be careful about this legislation because there are bound to be regulations of various kinds and these will require Affirmative Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament. We have enough legislation already, and if there is going to be a proliferation of legislation enactments, Statutory Instruments, and the rest of it, it will be more than both Houses of Parliament can tolerate. We are crowding both Houses of Parliament with an excess of legislation, and we have to be careful. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has given thought to these aspects of his Amendment and the possibilities arising from its acceptance. I suggest that this Amendment should be considered and probably be brought again at a further stage in our proceedings, but it is hardly acceptable at this stage.
EARL FERRERS: I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said about this Amendment, and about Equity in particular. I was also glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, agreed with us, at least on one point: that he did not think that the inclusion of the Monopolies Commission would be the wisest course to take. We
518
are fully aware of the problems of the acting profession. They have made real representations to the Government in the past, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, knows only too well, because of their peculiar circumstances. They were concerned that they should be allowed to operate a closed shop and, in particular, a post-entry closed shop.
BARONESS WHITE: A pre-entry closed shop.
EARL FERRERS: As I understand it, they have been concerned that they should be allowed to operate a closed shop, and it is for the reasons which have been put forward by the noble Baroness, and others who have been engaged on their behalf, that various arrangements have been made so that when the time comes and this Bill is law provision is made so that they can try to operate in the way that they have in the past reasonably been operating. Clause 16 is a clause which is so framed as to enable certain spheres of workers who will be caught by this Bill to operate the closed shop principle. It is part of the Government's view that the pre-entry closed shop is not necessary or desirable, for the reason that we believe it is not necessary that somebody should have to show, on application to a person for a job of work, that he ha, first become a member of a union.
We will certainly take the points which the noble Baroness has raised and have a look at them, because I know that she is concerned to see that Equity is adequately provided for. I suggest that this Amendment would not have the best results possible because of the reasons which I have already given: it gives a power to the Secretary of State which must, necessarily, up to a point, be a political power, which we believe to be wrong, and it incorporates the Monopolies Commission, which it would be equally improper to incorporate in this type of legislation.
LORD DIAMOND: I understood the noble Earl to say that the purpose of the Government in this clause, and I think in Clause 16, is to enable organisations, such as Equity, to carry on their existing practices. Would he confirm that that is a correct understanding of what he said?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is rather a wider question. What the noble Earl said was that the kind of situation which Equity had in mind they were already doing. There are other organisations involved, and until one knew exactly what those organisations were one might be going widely beyond the scope of what my noble friend said. The object of Clause 16 is to provide for a post-entry closed shop, on the conditions set out in Clause 16, to enable Equity to do what they have been doing.
BARONESS WHITE: Within the past hour I have been told by a spokesman of Equity that Clause 16 is not adequate, and they are very much concerned about Clause 6.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My information—and it has also come within the past hour, although it has not been so direct from the horse's mouth as that of the noble Baroness's—is that Equity are more interested in the conditions of a post-entry closed shop, and I understand that what they are doing at the moment does not amount to one. Whether it does or does not is something we cannot discuss on this Amendment. My information is that their whole case is that it does not amount to pre-entry closed shop. Whether they consider Clause 16 is adequate, and whether it is adequate, does not arise on this Amendment. This Amendment is about the pre-entry closed shop, and that we are opposed to.
6.48 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: There is one question I should like to ask, and it is whether or not what Equity is seeking is a post-entry closed shop or a pre-entry closed shop. I do not see how, in view of this clause, the Government can say that they are against pre-entry closed shops. I am sure the noble Earl can put me right. The description of Clause 6 is:
"Pre-entry closed shop agreements to be void."
There are two subsections. The main one, subsection (1), is presumably saying that they are void. The second says:
"Subsection (1)…shall not apply…"
to agreements under,
"Section 16 of this Act."
That must mean that agreements under Clause 16 are pre-entry closed shop
520
agreements, or could be, yet the Government say they are totally against them. I do not understand this. If the noble Earl is unable to reply at the moment, perhaps he would think about it before we get to the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Archibald.
Before I ask permission to withdraw this Amendment, there are some points which have been raised to which I should like to reply. I am always grateful for the generalised good will of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I was thinking of Equity when I produced this Amendment, and I do not think my Amendment could have quite the construction that he put on it, because it is dealing with the setting up of pre-entry closed shops and not with any agreement which would happen after they are set up.
I do not accept the irrelevance of the Monopolies Commission. This has obviously struck both Front Benches as being extraneous, and there was a certain suggestion that it was something I had thought up just because one had to think up some kind of safeguard. It is nothing of the sort. It has always been the view of the Liberal Party, or at least it has been its view for a very long time, that monopoly situations in labour, just as monopoly situations in commerce, are functions of the Monopolies Commission and that this is something the Monopolies Commission should be dealing with. Therefore, when we put this Amendment in this form it is not just a case of thinking up a special piece of machinery; it is going back to a basic principle of our thoughts on monopolies and industrial relations.
However, having said that, and not accepting the arguments against it, I would say that I do not accept the argument of the noble Earl about the Secretary of State. This is possibly not the right way to tackle the problem, in a Bill which quite rightly is trying to keep Government rather off the scene and making everything subject to Civil Law. In view of that, and with the hope that we shall receive a straight answer to the question that I put about the pre-entry closed shop a little later on, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps this is a convenient moment to ask for the

521
House to resume. In the circumstances we could perhaps give the little extra latitude until 8.30. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether we could get some understanding. Is this another 10 minutes off the time to be taken on the Industrial Relations Bill; or is it intended that we should resume 10 minutes earlier?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I have been in some way responsible for this I would apologise, but I think it is for the convenience of your Lordships. It struck me as quite impossible that the next Amendment would be finished in 10 minutes. What my noble friend said was 8.30 firm for resumption. I think that that is fair because the Law Reform Bill is likely to take all of an hour and a half, and it is far better to give a definite time on the clock for it, even if it does involve 10 minutes off this Bill. I much regret that, but I think probably this course is for the convenience of your Lordships. If it is not, we can go on until 7 o'clock, as originally proposed.
LORD BESWICK: So long as it is understood that it is not this side of the Committee that is delaying progress on the Industrial Relations Bill, and we are not expected to go later in the evening as a consequence.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
6.53 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No.
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Periodical payments to widows and other dependants
".—(1) In any action for damages brought under the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1959, the court shall have power to make an order (in this section called a "periodical payments order") for the payment by the Defendant to any dependant for whose benefit the action is brought of such sums of money at such intervals and during such period as may be specified in the order.
(2) A periodical payments order may be made instead of or in addition to any judgment for a lump sum by way of damages for the benefit of a dependant.
(3) The payments to be made under a periodical payments order shall be assessed according to the financial loss likely to be sustained by such dependant as a result of the death of the deceased during the period for which the order is made and different sums may he ordered to be paid in respect of different intervals during the period of the order.
(4) The Defendant and any dependant entitled to payments under a periodical payments order may at any time apply to the court for a variation of the order as to the amount of any future payments to he made thereunder or as to the intervals at which or the period during which such payments shall be made. No such application shall be made except on the ground that there has been a material change of circumstance which has resulted in the payments ordered to be made ceasing to be a fair assessment of the financial loss likely to he sustained by such dependant after the date of the application.
(5) Upon any application under the last preceding subsection the court, if satisfied that there has been such a material change of circumstance, may make such variation in the order as it thinks just.
(6) Where the court makes a periodical payments order in favour of a dependant who is a widow at the date of the order, the likelihood that she will re-marry during the period of the order shall not be taken into account in assessing the amount of any payments ordered to be made to her thereunder but her re-marriage after the date of the order may be relied upon as a material change of circumstance for the purposes of any application under subsection (4) of this section.
(7) Where the court gives judgment for a lump sum by way of damages for the benefit of a dependant who is a widow at the date of the judgment, the likelihood that she will re-marry thereafter shall not be taken into account in assessing such damages unless the full particular delivered pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 contains an express statement that no application is made on her behalf for a periodic al payments order and that if the court thinks lit to give judgment for a lump sum by way of damages for her benefit she is willing

523
that the likelihood of her re-marrying after the date of the judgment should be taken into account in assessing such damages."
The noble and learned Lord said: When I intervened in the debate on Second Reading of this Bill I was ingenuous enough to think it was concerned with lawyers' law—in particular Clause 4 of it, which was dealing directly with what a judge has to do. It occurred to me that 15 years of practical experience in adjudicating in this kind of action made it proper that I should draw the attention of the House to difficulties and indeed injustices which may result from accepting Clause 4 of the Bill in the form in which it came from another place. The task of assessing damages in a lump sum for dependants, which is not of course limited to widows, under the Fatal Accidents Act, is one which is always fraught with anxiety to the judge. It is so difficult to be right; and to be wrong is bound to cause injustice.
It seemed to me that the defect of Clause 4 was that it focused exclusively upon one facet of a much wider problem, although my own experience leads me to believe that quantitatively prospects of a widow's remarriage play a significant part in a very small minority of cases, and that it has been greatly overestimated by some of the supporters of the Bill. The fact that it does not play quantitatively a large part in assessing damages in this type of litigation does not mean that I do not sympathise with the deep emotions which are stirred in those few cases in which it does arise, both by the prospect of questions being publicly addressed to the widow as to her intentions of remarriage, and as to what I am told, though I have never experienced, are the snooping inquiries which in some cases go on before the case is tried. Nor do I underestimate the emotion which has been stirred by such metaphors as "the cattle market" and "the slave market" which, though I think unjustifiably, have acquired a currency; and legislation must, I accept, take account of public opinion, even if public opinion may not be based on rational, as distinct from purely emotional, grounds.
I, too, would spare the widow the indignity of having to answer such questions in open court; and I like to think that in the many scores of cases which I tried I succeeded in doing so. I, too, would wish to relieve the judge of the anxious
524
task, where it arises, of making an estimate of the widow's prospects of remarriage. But I should wish to do so in the context of a wider reform, designed to reduce the risks of injustice for widows and for equally deserving dependants in a field which, quantitatively and qualitatively, in terms of human suffering is liable to result from the present system—injustice much greater than that involved in any question of the prospects of remarriage.
My objection to Clause 4 as it stands in the Bill as it came from another place is not that it ignores these other and larger problems. Reform, provided always that it is consistent in principle, may have to be piecemeal owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure. I do not object to it on those grounds, but Clause 4, it seems to me, is subject to four objections: first, it is irreconcilable with the principle of the Fatal Accidents Act; secondly, it creates injustice as between young re-married widows and those in middle years with children whose needs are so much greater; thirdly, it makes more difficult the prospect of future rational life; fourthly,—and I put this last—it gives to the judge a task which is repellent to all his instincts for doing even justice between parties to litigation before him.
In the course of the speeches on Second Reading, it appeared to me that some of the Members of this House were not entirely familiar with the nature of the damages which are awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act. In England, there is no element in the damages of compensation for the grief of the dependant at the bereavement. For my part, I should find the task of estimating death in pounds and pence impossible and distasteful. If it had to be done, then there would be no reason for limiting it to those who were financially dependent upon the deceased, who are the only ones who can recover damages under the Fatal Accidents Act. The loss of an only child to parents must cause grief as great as any which one can imagine. No, damages under the Fatal Accidents Act depend upon a cold financial calculation of the loss of material benefits in cash or kind by those children, parents, widows, or other near relatives for whom the deceased provided, or would he likely to do so in the future had he lived.
It may perhaps help to explain the difficulties which I feel about Clause 4 as it stood before and why I am proposing the substitute clause which stands in my name, if I venture for a few minutes to try to explain the mental processes through which a judge has to go in making the estimate of damages under the Act. It involves three stages. First, he has to make an estimate of the financial benefits the deceased would have provided for the dependants who are seeking compensation if he had not been killed by the tortious act of the defendant.
The starting point, naturally, is an estimate of the financial benefits which those dependants were deriving from him during the period shortly before his death. Then one has to consider his expectation of working life; that is, the period during which he would have continued to provide material benefits for his wife, maybe his aged parents, or his children, or maybe a dependant sister. And one has to consider the prospects of promotion that he had, the likelihood that as he went up successively on the ladder of his employment he would be able to provide greater material benefits than at the time at which he died.
Next one has to consider on the other side of the coin the expectation of life of the parent, for example, who is claiming, or of the widow, if that is likely to be less than that of the expectation of the working life of the deceased. One has to consider in relation to children how long they would be likely to have been dependent and at what age they would have gone out into the world to earn a living for themselves. So far as the estimate is based on what was likely to have happened to the husband, it can never be shown to be wrong. All that one can attempt is to do one's best to make a fair estimate of what would be likely to have happened if he had not been killed and the Court of Appeal can correct and get a general balance in the decisions of individual judges on that matter. But in so far as that estimate depends upon a guess as to how long the parent will live or the widow will live, or how long the child would have been dependent, facts may show in the future that that was wrong. If they do, under the present system there is no way of correcting that error.
The next stage in the calculation is to take account on the debit side of those sources of material benefits which are available to the dependant as a result of the death of the deceased which would not have been available apart from that. The first example is legacies from the estate of the deceased or, if one comes to the c inclusion that those legacies would ultimately have been left had he lived longer, then an allowance for the accelerated receipt of them. As I said, this is a cold, financial calculation.
Again, one takes into account remarriage, or a strong likelihood of it. I emphasise the words a strong likelihood of it "because, as I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, it is only in a small minority of cases that this is a significant factor. Likewise, one would take into account the ability of a widow, in particular, to re-engage in salaried employment which she might have had before the marriage and which she left in order to carry on the duties, and the pleasures, of running the household. Those estimates, however reasonable they may appear at the time they are made, may be falsified by events, and if they are, there is no way under our present system of correcting the injustice that results from it.
Finally, the last stage in the calculation is to estimate the amount of a capital sum which would produce, over the years which one has estimated that the benefits would have been received, an annuity of the sum of the financial value of the material benefits in cash or kind which would have been obtained. The normal way of doing that in the ordinary case, where very large sums are not involved, is by applying a number of years' purchase to the median benefit which one has estimated. In picking on the number of years' purchase to grant one normally takes into account those various probabilities, and chances to which I have been referring.
There has, however, come into operation within the last year or so an important new factor which is liable to falsify that last stage in the calculation, and that is inflation. There is a very grave danger, if inflation goes on increasing, that a lump sum which is awarded this year, and which is fairly sufficient to provide the widow, the parent or the child with

527
the material benefits lost over the coming years by the death of the deceased, will in the event because of the fall in the value of money, prove to be wholly inadequate to do so.
Clause 4 as it stands at present cuts right across this principle. The widow of 20 with no children, already remarried at the date of the assessment of the damages, or engaged to be remarried, will get a sum which bears no relation whatever to her actual material loss; and, what is worse, although her actual loss is likely to be not one-twentieth of that of a widow in her forties with children, the amount she will get will be at least twice—perhaps three times—as much as the widow in her forties whose needs are so much greater. To deal, as Clause 4 does, with the prospects of remarriage does not tackle the real weakness of the present system, which is the fallibility of judges as prophets. Dependent parents may live much longer than the average expectation of life on which the judge has ruled. Children may go on with further education when at the time the estimate was made the probability was that they would leave school at 15 or at 16 and cease to be dependent on their parents. A woman who was earning good money at the date of the death of the deceased, a factor which would limit or reduce the material benefits which she was getting from her husband, may become ill, suffer an accident, cease to be able to earn it; and all the judge's calculations are falsified by the event and nothing can put it right. Injustice, too—I do not hesitate to mention this—may also be done to the defendant. The dependent parent may die the year after the assessment in his or her favour has been made. It may be odd of me, but as a judge I like to see justice done to both sides, even if one of them is a defendant and even if that defendant is represented by an insurance company.
I wish to turn now to the terms of the new clause which I am proposing. I was told that I should at the outset of my speech have suggested that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss at the same time the new clause, the Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Pearson, and the Amendment in my name—to leave out Clause 4 because
528
they deal with the same topic—and, indeed, it would be difficult to discuss them separately. I turn therefore, with that suggestion, which I hope will commend itself to the House, to the new clause which sets out the principles of rational reform which I would commend to this House. I personally should have preferred the whole question of damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts to have been referred to the Law Commission for an urgent report, and for them at the same time to consider a closely related subject under another Statute: that is, damages for loss of expectation of life, for that would have enabled at any rate a more detailed and a more tidy enactment to be made. I have not sufficient experience to have antennae sensitive to the mood of the House, but I had a suspicion at the time of the debate of the Second Reading that it would not be wholly in accord with what I sensed to be the mood of the House if it were adjourned even for that length of time, which I hoped would be short, for a careful consideration and discussion of an amendment of the law on the lines set out in this new proposed clause. I therefore will in due course beg to move it.
If it is accepted, it will, I recognise, require tidying up Amendments which can be made at the Report stage, for what it seeks to do is to set out the principle in terms which I hope will be understandable by laymen as well as by lawyers. For instance, the position in Scotland, of which I have not sufficient personal detailed knowledge and which differs slightly from that in England, would require to be considered and dealt with. The question of joint liability in cases where another party is under a liability to contribute to the damages would also need to be dealt with. And it may be, indeed I think it is, that rights against insurers should be specifically provided for. But I believe that, subject to that minor tidying up, the courts could make this new clause work in the form in which it stands. I may perhaps add that it is certainly not shorter than the original Fatal Accidents Act of 1846. Draftsmen were more laconic in those days.
The key to the new clause is to be found in subsection (1), in the provision empowering the court to make orders for periodical payments in place of lump

529
sums for damages. It is not a provision which would have been practicable in 1846, when the original Act was passed, because of the risk that individual defendants might be financially unable to keep up the payments over the period, which might be lengthy, during which they would be paid. 13ut to-day all but a negligible number of claims under the Fatal Accidents Act are covered by insurance, either by motor vehicle insurance or by employers' liability insurance. I am anticipating the passing by your Lordships' House of the Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Bill, which comes before the House, I think, next week, and which will make the insurance of the passenger in the vehicle compulsory. The fatal accidents field is the best one in which to start a reform of this kind; it may be desirable for all cases of personal injuries, but in the fatal accidents field there is riot that objection, which I find a very formidable one where the plaintiff is still alive, of the danger of creating the permanent invalid syndrome because he knows that if he gets better, if the condition improves, the payments will be reduced. This is not malingering; it is one of the psychological effects of litigation, and this social damage to the man himself is one which one should bear in mind; but that does not exist in fatal accident cases. This system of periodical payments in cases of this kind is not entirely new in the English system. It is common in many of the civil law systems, and its practicability in this country is, I venture to say, proved by the fact that for over fifty years the insurance companies have lived with and made work a system of periodical payments under workmen's compensation.
Subsection (2) leaves it open to have a lump sum payment instead of a periodical payments order. Indeed in nearly all cases there will be a lump sum payment for special damages which have been incurred before the date of the trial, in addition to the damages for the future. But as regards the future, there may be cases when both parties would prefer a lump sum payment to a periodical payments order. I suspect that insurance companies will in most cases do so, and dependants may if, for example, they want a capital sum to buy a house or start a business or some
530
thing of that kind, although my own view is that in the majority of cases it would be in their own interest to have a periodical payments order. But the option is left open to each side.
Subsections (3) to (5) may be considered together because they deal with variation of the order. They are designed to enable the court to do justice in the light of the actual facts as they have happened and not merely upon a prophecy, which may be false, of how they are likely to happen. What I have in mind is not only remarriage, which would be a reason for applying for a variation of the order, but all those matters of uncertainty—life, expectation of life, injury, going on with higher education when it was not foreseen, and particularly inflation, to which I have referred. Insurers are in a much better position to hedge against inflation than are small investors, such as the dependants receiving compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act.
I turn finally to subsections (6) and (7), which were added (and I apologise for this) later than the first subsections in order to make explicit the position as regard!, re-marriage, which I think would have been implicit in the way that the courts would have worked out the operation of the first four subsections. Subsection (6) deals with the case where a periodical payment order is made. The prospects of remarriage there are irrelevant. No question as to prospects of remarriage; no inquiries as to prospects of remarriage can be admitted or can affect the order; only the actual fact of remarriage may be a material change of circumstance entitling a party to ask for a variation of the order.
May I say at once that this has the advantage that, if the widow marries a man of lesser income, or lesser financial standing than the husband who had died, then the fact that the material benefits that she will get from her new marriage are less, than she would have had had her previous husband continued to live can be taken into account in an amendment to the annual payment being made. I should expect, in practice, that insurers would ask for periodical payment orders where there was a strong likelihood that the widow would remarry. Wherever this is being granted, as I said, prospects of remarriage are irrelevant; no questions

531
on it in the proceedings, no inquiries about it before the proceedings can take place.
Subsection (7) deals with a lump sum payment. In the case where the claim is made for a lump sum payment instead of a periodical payments order, the remarriage prospects of the widow cannot be taken into consideration unless two conditions are fulfilled. The first—and it may be the most important for those who supported Clause (4) in its original form—is that the remarriage prospects cannot be taken into consideration unless the widow expressly consents. Secondly, she must disclaim any intention to apply for a periodical payments order instead; that is to say, she must choose. She must say: "I want to have a lump sum payment order, and I agree, in assessing it, to have my marriage prospects taken into account."
I should not expect this clause to be used at all in the case of the typical widow—at any rate, what I found to be the typical widow in the many cases that I tried, and that I have seen later in Appelate courts—in her late thirties or older. In that case I should expect the insurance company to apply for a lump sum payment since, in those cases, the prospect of remarriage plays an insignificant part, if any (indeed none, so far as I was concerned) in the assessment of the lump sum. Although I personally would advise the typical widow to ask for a periodical payment order rather than a lump sum, if she did want one I have little doubt that the insurers would consent to that form of order rather than a periodical payments order and, if that were done, then the prospects of her remarriage would be, in law irrelevant, as in fact they already are. If your Lordships approve of my suggestion that the three Amendments should be discussed together before a vote on them is taken, I shall in due course beg to move that this Amendment be accepted.
7.37 p.m.
LORD PEARSON: My noble and learned friend Lord Diplock has proposed that the three Amendments should be taken together, and if that course commends itself to the Committee, it is perhaps convenient that I should say a few words about the Amendment which
532
stands in my name and is intended as a shorter and simpler alternative, in a way, to the one which has already been proposed. Your Lordships will see that the Amendment proposed to Clause 4 is intended as a short and simple Amendment with three objects in view: two being positive objects, and one really a negative object. The first positive object is to eliminate the present Clause 4 of the Bill, which I regard as undesirable. I regard it as undesirable because it introduces a statutory fiction, and substitutes fiction for fact, in the judicial estimate of the amount of damage which the widow has sustained. I say that for this reason. As has been explained, under these Acts you estimate merely the financial loss which the widow, and possibly other dependants, have suffered by reason of the deceased husband's death. In other words, that which has to be assessed is the net loss of the husband's financial support to the widow.
In assessing the net loss from being deprived of that financial support, it seems to me elementary that a highly important factor is the period for which that loss will endure. In the ordinary way, if there is no remarriage, it may endure for a very long period—twenty, thirty, forty years or whatever it may be—but, under the provision in the Bill, even if an actual remarriage has occurred by the time when the assessment has to be made (and suppose that is a year and a half, or two years after the accident) in such a case it is obvious that the actual loss is comparatively small because the period during which the husband, or a huband's financial support has been lost, is only eighteen months, or two years, instead of thirty or forty years. Why should that fact be left out of account? Why should the unfortunate judge, who is trying to assess damages and wishing to assess them on a realistic basis to find what is the loss really suffered, have to disregard the facts and make his assessment on the fictitious basis that the widow has not remarried and is not going to do so?
That is why I object to the present provision in the Bill. It is fiction. It is not fact, and it is not fair or reasonable to require the judicial estimate to be made on the basis of falsehood instead of on the basis of reality. If the widow has in fact remarried by the time the assessment

533
is being made, surely it is right to look at the facts and see how much damage she has really suffered. Otherwise, when the actual damage suffered may be, say, £1,500, it will be necessary, under the provision in the Bill, to assess some very much larger sum—£9,000, £10,000, £12,000, or whatever it may be. That is not reasonable or fair; and in any case it is not justice. So I submit that that is wrong.
The second positive object of the Amendment is to put right what I think is one of the evils complained of, and the one which seems to me quite clear. The widow is entitled to fair treatment and it is not fair that a widow in the witness box should be asked, and compelled to answer, questions as to her intentions or expectations of remarriage. One can see at once that such questions may well be highly embarrassing and they ought to be barred. The Amendment which I am proposing would deal with that position. It would provide that in the sphere of procedure, the sphere of evidence, such questions shall not be asked and the defendant shall not adduce any evidence—if he can find any—with regard to the prospect of remarriage, unless the widow herself chooses to give evidence on it, which is I suppose highly unlikely.
The object of this Amendment is to avoid the possibility—I am not sure that it is much more than a bare responsibility—that such questions might be put to the widow in the witness box. It is a long time since I was trying cases in first instance, and I am not entirely au fait with what happens nowadays, but I do not think that when I was trying cases such questions were put to the witness. But, at any rate, if there is any possibility that they might be put, then that possibility ought to be barred and no such questions should be put.
The third object of this Amendment is to provide a short and simple remedy for the evil complained of, without introducing any elaborate or far-reaching alterations of the law which may be highly desirable—and I am not speaking against the proposals. It may be that the Committee will prefer to deal simply with this subject which arises to be dealt with, and to deal with it in the simple way suggested in the Amendment that I have ventured to put forward. From those points of view, I venture to commend this Amendment to the Committee.
7.44 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am sure that the Committee were charmed when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, confessed that his antennae were not tuned to the atmosphere of this House during the Second Reading. We fully realise that, and I, for one, realise that I put a point of view—which I am going to repeat to-day—which is totally opposed to the judicial approach. In the first place, I should have said that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in that compensation should be given as periodical payments rather than as a lump sum, because this method will afford a widow greater security.
I find it very difficult to visualise what the noble and learned Lord called a "typical widow". All women here looked at themselves and wondered whether we are typical women. If we are not typical women, then what is a typical widow? However, if he means that a woman of about 35 is a typical widow, I fully accept that. But let us think of this typical widow who has been married for some years with children living in a little suburban house, who has received her housekeeping money regularly; who perhaps has been responsible for paying the rent, the groceries, and so on, and who has geared her life to a period cal sum. Suddenly, a terrible thing happens and she is stricken. Her husband, who has earned the wages—and I emphasise that he has earned the wages, because I am going to point out soon that the woman serves equally in the home—is killed overnight. Time passes, and she is involved in legal proceedings. It is decided that this woman, who has been accustomed to periodical payments in her life and understands how to handle them, is to have a large lump sum.
I am sure that all of your Lordships read your papers regularly, and in various cases counsel for the defendant has been known to say that any woman with a substantial sum is bound to marry. Only to-day, I read that yesterday a judge warned a woman who had been awarded about £8,000 to beware of the "smooth-tongued predatory gentleman". That is the last thing I should call a man, but not all men are perfect and there are some men who do not merely assess a woman's size and shape or her loving mind, but give some thought to how much

535
money she possesses. But, suddenly, this typical widow is given a large sum of money, and that encourages many women to rush into another marriage because of loneliness, fear of the future and sexual deprivation. A woman needs only a little flattery—because a woman wants to he cared for, wants to be loved; and the woman we are talking about has been without the man who has cared for her and loved her for some time. So that she is vulnerable to the approach of what the judge called the "predatory gentleman". Therefore I feel that she may enter into a marriage which she will bitterly regret when her money has disappeared into the pockets of a spendthrift idler.
Some argue that by failing to take a lump sum she runs the risk of losing all, through the subsequent insolvency of the defendant; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has put that point of view very well. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, feels rather strongly that periodical payments are wrong, because the defendant may become insolvent. May I repeat what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said on Second Reading? He said:
"In the case of fatal accidents, where more than 99 per cent. of the cases arise out of traffic acidents, where there is compulsory insurance—and I hope there will be compulsory insurance for passengers soon—or out of industrial accidents where, in practice, everyone is insured, the original difficulties about making awards in the form of periodical payments … disappear."—[OFFICAIL REPORT, 20 /4 / 71, col. 543.]
I think it is very important that noble Lords should recognise the case for periodical payments.
Having said that about part of the Amendment, I must register my total opposition to the proposal that a widow's compensation shall be varied if there is a material change of circumstances, which includes remarriage. I have to confess that it is a matter of great disappointment to me that three eminent Law Lords have failed to adjust themselves to the 20th century concept of a woman's role—or, in this respect, I might say the 20th century concept of the housewife's role. I dealt with this point on Second Reading, when I asked that a wife should be treated financially as a working partner rather than as a kept
536
woman. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock—and I listened to every word very carefully—appeared to regard the housewife as an appendage to a man who is prepared to subsidise her; and when that man dies and another man comes along with a subsidy, then the value placed on her working years, valued in terms of compensation placed on her working years with the first husband, must be reassessed, and the defendant may apply to the court for a variation of the order.
I was astonished when he turned to the House and, suggesting how generous they would be, said that if by chance the woman met a husband who was not as wealthy as the first they were not going to condemn her to this lower income; they were going to be extremely generous and allow her to keep an amount equivalent to compensation for the higher income. Does the noble Lord realise that noble Baronesses here were not impressed? That is not doing something generous: that is the least that can be done in the circumstances. It is not generous, of course, because the second income should not be taken into account at all. But he suggests that a widow, his typical widow, who has cooked, worked, brought up the children and looked after her husband in order that he might go out to work, is going to be treated generously because when the second husband comes she will be allowed to have an amount in terms of compensation still equivalent to the first.
It is surprising that the noble Lord and his noble friends who have put their names to this Amendment, with their knowledge and experience, cannot appreciate that the woman we are talking about has, as I have already said, worked for her family (and, by working for her family, she is working for the nation, because after all the workers are the true wealth of the nation) and, through this work, has earned the compensation which has been awarded. I say that this principle should be upheld whatever the age of the widow. The noble Lord said that he is fearful, or he implied that he was, of being thought over-generous to the young widow. He has already said that his typical widow is 35. That gives us the case. If his typical widow is 35, then the very young widows are in a tiny

537
minority. I would ask noble Lords, in the case of the very young widows, to put mercy before logic.
The noble Lord talked about the large sums of compensation which are often given. We are all familiar with the compensation given in the form of "golden handshakes" to men who are not logically entitled to them. But law and custom cannot always be consistent. Does the noble Lord immediately write a letter to The Times and say, "This is outrageous! This man has been given a colossal sum of money. He has worked for only a certain period; he is not entitled to it in legal terms"? We should be grateful, perhaps, that legal terms are not responsible for directing our lives. We cannot always be consistent, and in this matter I would ask noble Lords to have mercy on this very small number of young widows. I would ask noble Lords not again to use the widow of a worker fatally injured in an accident as the peg on which to hang a legalistic, out-moded argument like the one we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Diplock.
From subsection (7) it will be seen that it is proposed that in certain cases a lump sum by way of damages can be given and, provided the widow agrees,
"the likelihood of her re-marrying after the date of the judgment should be taken into account in assessing such damages".
This is a restatement of what has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Diplock, as "the cattle-market procedure". Here it is. There has been a great amount of discussion among noble Lords over the last few weeks. We saw the first Amendment down: a simple Amendment to delete that part of the Bill which dealt with this subject. Then, if I may say so, there was a great amount of public disquiet, and it was suggested that these noble Lords were not in touch with women; that they had little idea of what was going on—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord understands what I mean. After all, when I am speaking of noble Lords I can only think along perhaps the severest lines. But they did not realise what the women's organisations were thinking. On this subject women's
538
organisations have for years sent representations to successive Governments, time and time again. This is not something new to women. I have been to conference after conference at which women have got up and denounced this method of dealing with "the typical widow". I say that subsection (7) is a restatement. Subsection (7) provides that if the widow agrees to this, and only if she agrees to it, will this practice be followed. It makes little difference to a nervous widow involved in legal proceedings whether she is asked to agree to inspection or whether inspection is made without her being asked. Here she is, having come up from her little home, among lawyers, with a lawyer telling her that it will be in her best interests if she allows herself to be inspected and somebody to sum up what her chances are in the marriage market. Of course she will be compelled to agree with her lawyer, and there is no question in this of her being free to decide.
Again, if there are noble Lords here who feel that this is a new subject, I would ask them to read the Report of the Committee on Personal Injuries Litigation. This Report was made in 1968 by the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Winn. It reported in 1968; it was appointed in 1966. This Committee sat for three years deciding what your Lordships are being asked to decide in this little debate, and perhaps one on Friday.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Does the noble Baroness say that the consideration of this question was within their terms of reference? I thought it was not; and I think the noble Baroness is wrong in saying that they spent three years considering this problem.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My answer to that is: let me tell the noble and learned Viscount what Lord Justice Winn said.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am aware of it.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: He said this, on the award of damages to a widow:
"We have had passed on to us from your Lordships' Office correspondence demonstrating that the representative bodies concerned with the welfare of women are gravely dissatisfied

539
with the present practice of forming a judgment as to whether there is a probability that the individual widow will remarry, and, if there appears to be such a possibility, of forecasting when this may happen. This topic has been raised in Parliament and in many Press articles. We are unanimous in expressing the definite view that the law should be so changed as to obviate the continuance of the present practice".
That was the Report of the Committee which considered this matter for some years. That was what Lord Justice Winn said. Therefore I ask the House to recognise that this subject has been threshed out for many years.
It has been said that men make the laws and women the manners. Perhaps only women can appreciate the indignity suffered by a widow who is compelled to submit to inspection by a strange man with a view to assessing her physical desirability. I would say this to noble Lords—I know them well enough to feel that they will take it in good part: a man's legal qualifications do not lessen her discomfort; for in this matter a judge and a manual labourer may have similar tastes. They may like women dark or fair, tall or short, buxom or slim. In the twenty minutes or so in which the judge looks at the woman he has to sum up whether she is likely to be desirable in the eyes of some other man. And during all this time the mind of the widow remains a closed book. She stands there mute, being assessed physically. Here in this new Amendment precisely the same practice is going to be pursued—provided, that is, that the widow does not rise up. I suppose, to make an impassioned speech against it. This woman knows that the male test of her desirability is concern, if I may quote the Home Secretary, with the "mechanics of sex" and not a loving disposition.
Finally, I say that it is lamentable that noble Lords by this Amendment should seek to perpetuate in our courts this crude assessment of the value of a woman, oblivious to the mental stress to which she is subjected. Again I should like to emphasise that the widow should be regarded as having been the working partner of her late husband for whom she has worked in the home, reared the children and has thus enabled him to earn his wage or salary and to improve his
540
skills. As I said on Second Reading, that was just one phase of her life, a phase which has had a tragic ending. Her financial compensation should bear no relationship to the next phase, whether she marries or remains single.
8.4 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, may I join with the noble Baroness in thinking that the law as it stands at present should be amended. As I have dealt with many of these cases at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, may I say that in the great majority of cases the prospects of remarriage are not taken into account in the least. The widow is not asked as to her prospects of marriage or the like, and the judge when he comes to assess them assesses them on so many years' purchase. which he feels is right, or the loss of money benefit which she has sustained. Likewise in the Court of Appeal, that is how the great majority of cases are decided. It is in this small minority—which equally I would deplore—that the widow is asked whether she has been going about with such-and-such a man or living with such-and-such a man and whether she is likely to remarry. Then, if the judge is satisfied that there is a strong likelihood of remarriage, he may reduce the amount on that account.
I would join forces with those who propose the Amendment in saying that that is most undesirable because of the evils to which it has given rise in the administration of justice. Before the trial the insurance companies may send their agents, or "snoopers" if you so like to call them, to see how the widow is living. At the trial the widow, I am afraid, will keep it all back from the judge; it may not have been inquired into. She will tell lies as to what her relationship was with such-and-such a man. That all may get through. Cases we have had in the Court of Appeal have arisen when the talebearers after the trial send word to the insurance company and say that she has deceived the court. I remember one case where it was said. "She has gone over to North Wales with her children and the man with whom she was living. She did not tell the court that". Only a few days ago there was an instance of a lady who had been living with another man and had a child by him. She had told the court that she had not done anything. The court did not know it then. She said

541
she lived an innocent life with no thought of remarriage. The case was settled, because the damages were reduced by agreement.
But it is those evils before the hearing, at the hearing and after the hearing which seem to me so undesirable. For that reason I would suggest that an amendment should be made in order that they may be got rid of. My noble and learned friend Lord Pearson makes a very good suggestion that the matter should not be gone into by either side but should be controlled by the judge. I think he might do so without having such questions asked, unless the woman has invited them. Therefore to that extent I would support the proposed Amendment. But I must say that the Bill will give rise to a great deal of difficulty as it stands. The court is not to take account of her actual remarriage or prospects of remarriage. Then what is the court to do? We are to imagine then, that she is not married and is not going to get married. If we have to do that by a fiction, we must imagine that she goes out to work. Take the case of the widowed secretary who has been remarried. If we are to imagine that she is not remarried, then we must imagine that she must go out to work to earn more money. Unless this Amendment is carefully considered the judges will have great difficulty in the future in knowing what is to happen if they are to ignore remarriage or the prospects of remarriage.
But, from that, may I say a word as to the Amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock. For many years I have thought that it would be useful to reform our law in such a way that instead of judges being obliged to give lump sums they could give periodical payments. I have often thought that in the cases of paraplegics, paralysed from the waist down arid quadaplegics paralysed from the neck down. They may be given £20,000 or £30,000 damages. Also in the case of the unconscious, who may remain unconscious all their lives. Sometimes they die within a year or so of the award, then the money goes perhaps to those who do not need it or deserve it. I have often thought in those cases how much better it would be for periodical payments to be made. The insurance companies, I believe, object, and I can understand it; they want to
542
get rid of their liability, compounded once and for all. As to widows, would it not often be better, from the practical point of view, that they should have periodical payments, coming in regularly, as one has from the National Insurance for accidents and the like. Let them be substantial payments, made quickly after the award. As my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock says, let them cope with inflation.
I would add—it may be possible—let there be an immediate lump sum, if you like, and a departure from the absolute rule of pecuniary loss. Let there be compensation for the plight in which they have been put. Let £5,000 be paid in every case, followed by periodical payments to meet the needs. But in principle it is well worth the consideration of this Committee to allow something on the lines of the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has suggested would be a very valuable improvement in the law, always as an alternative and not compulsory. Subject to that, I am not quite sure which way I should vote on these Amendments.
8.10 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: If I may at the outset try to get the record straight, I think my noble friend Lady Summerskill by accident attributed to me a passage from A. speech made by Lord Diplock. She certainly used my name.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: But not in that connection, if I remember rightly.
LORD STOW HILL: Then I apologise. I would simply say one thing more about my noble friend's speech. I, of course, agree with a great deal of it, especially that part which was covered by the vivid and graphic description which graced the latter portion of it. What I disagree with is in her preference for periodic payments, and I would only say that I have a much higher opinion of the wisdom and common-sense of the opposite sex from myself than she has. I feel honoured and privileged in the acqaintanceship with ladies that I have enjoyed in my long life, and I confess that in this year of 1971, so far as my experience goes, they are every bit as intelligent and able to control themselves, to look after themselves and to shape their lives as their male counterparts. And the idea that a lady with £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000 at

543
her disposal is likely to fall an easy prey to what the noble Baroness described as a "predatory male"—whatever he may look like—seems to me as difficult to accept as that her male counterpart in possession of a similar sum in this year of grace 1971 is likely to fall a prey to a predatory female.
May I leave her speech with those comments, and go to the speeches of the three noble and learned Lords, to whom I would wish to express my personal gratitude for the obvious careful thought that they have given to the problem that confronts the Committee and for the labour and pains they have expended on trying to devise an answer to the difficulties which we have discussed, and which were so exhaustively discussed in another place. The first noble and learned Lord who spoke was Lord Diplock. May I address myself first to him. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was describing what takes place in what I quite agree with him are a minority of cases, he was as profoundly repelled by the noble and learned Lord's description, as I believe anybody here would be on hearing it.
If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, I do not believe that in his formulation of the problem and in his thinking out of the answer, he really gave adequate weight to the sense of detestation that the vast majority of people in this country feel at the idea that an unfortunate widow, whose husband has been killed, perhaps some years before or probably quite recently before the occasion arises when she has to go into the witness box, should be asked the sort of questions which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, described from his very long and rich experience in these matters. I can only say, that the procedure as he described it, seemed to me quite detestable. I know that many judges find it so because learned judges have over and over again said in their judgments, and quite apart from their judgments, how much they dislike having to preside over inquiries of this sort and how anxious they are to be relieved of this difficult task.
I know, too, how out of their sense of delicacy, which we should all applaud,
544
they do the best they can while trying to do their duty, disagreeable as it may be, to see that the proceedings are conducted with a reasonable sense of the "suffering"—I use the word advisedly—of the widow in the witness box. In consequence they very often ask, if they ask any questions at all, only a minimum of those questions which they think to be utterly indispensable. But cases do arise where insurance companies—and I do not refer to them in any critical sense—again in the discharge of their duty put inquiry agents to shadow the unfortunate widow.
These matters of one's intentions towards the opposite sex, one's desires and plans as to how to lead one's life in the future are intensely personal. Unless it is absolutely essential, in a civilised country people should not have to be subjected to the ordeal of being cross-examined as to their views and intentions in an extremely private terrain of personal feelings and reactions of that sort. And that is exactly what is done now, as the noble and learned Lord, from the wealth of his experience, described it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, agreed that it was a very undesirable practice. I simply say this: he is most anxious, as all learned judges are—and I yield to none in my very deep and fervent respect for the Bench in this country—to do justice as between widow and widow. I would only say to him that if so few questions are asked, as the law stands—the law which we who have promoted this Bill are most anxious to alter—injustice is constantly done between one widow and another and between one defendant and another, when the matter is treated with that delicacy, which we all so highly applaud.
Take two widows. Let us assume that they are of the same age and approximately of the same attraction, each married to a late husband of about the same age and with approximately the same income and with similar prospects. They are similar in all respects when they appear in the witness box, and if a learned judge, acting from motives, as I say, of courtesy and humanity, deducts what he thinks is necessary, on a very ad hoc basis—in" I may so describe it—in each case he would probably deduct the same. Those two widows may be

545
utterly different in temperament and in their reactions to the tragedy through which they have passed. One may be a lady who is perhaps of a buoyant and optimistic temperament. She may think—and quite rightly think—that her late husband would have wished her to pick up the bits and try to make a new life and, if in due course a suitable person came along, to remarry. That might have been the case for one of the two widows.
The other widow—and I do not criticise one as against the other at all—may be of a wholly different temperament. She may be devoted to the memory of her late husband and the idea of her ever, in the whole of her natural life, taking anyone to replace him, may be to her utter anathema. She may feel deeply and sincerely that the very idea of entering into another matrimonial relationship would be something which she genuinely could never contemplate.
If the matter is dealt with as it is in the courts to-day, those two widows are dealt with on precisely the same basis. One gets much too much and the other too little, and one defendant pays too much and the other defendant pays too little. One advantage, at any rate, if may put it to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is that I respectfully submit that the change in the law which I propose would put an end to that fundamental injustice. That, I should have thought would be something of considerable value.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, proposed a different remedy. His particular concern was the question of remarriage. May I say a word on that? In the other place the possible alternatives were exhaustively discussed. It was accepted that perhaps there was some illogicality, if you excluded from consideration prospects, also of excluding actual remarriage. That particularly concerned the noble and learned Lord. I do not want to take time over it, but I wish to put this to the Committee. It is much more logical than taking it into account, because what the Act of 1846 required—this has been said by learned judge after learned judge and I could cite a wealth of authorities—was that you take into account, by way of loss. the loss of the support which the husband
546
would have provided for the wife in pounds, shillings and pence had he lived and you deduct from that only direct financial advantages which accrue to the widow as the result of the death.
Applying that principle, you do not take into account, for example, when the relatives provide for her or any other benefit in a broad financial sense which may be available. Suppose a workman is killed and his mates rally round to provide money to help the widow. That is not taken into account because it is not caused by the death. Nor is remarriage caused by the death. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in a judgment which I have had the pleasure of reading, pointed out, in a case in which a widow had worked, that her earnings should not be taken into account because they were due to her own volition, her own choice, and not the result of the death. So it is not logical at all not to take remarriage into account.
May I address myself to the Amendments particularly, because I submit that the Amendments both of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, really will not stand up. What is proposed by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock? There are to be periodic payments either in substitution for or in addition to a lump sum. The Amendment goes on to pose that there can be application made to vary the amount of the periodical payment. It reads:
"No such application shall be made except on the ground that there has been a material change of circumstance which has resulted in the payments ordered to be made ceasing to be a fair assessment of the financial loss likely to be sustained by such dependant after the date of the application."
It goes on:
"Upon any application under the last preceding subsection the court, if satisfied that there has, been such a material change of circumstance, may make such variation in the order as it thinks just."
In my submission the plain effect of that wording is this. As from the date of the death of the husband, and the hearing of the case in which she claims damages in respect of that death, the widow is in leading strings for the rest of her life. The person who holds the strings is the private insurance company. I do not decry insurance companies or criticise

547
them in the least. They must do their duty. In past years it has been my privilege and good fortune to work closely with the claims departments of most of our great insurance companies and I know those departments to be staffed by humane and decent people who I am sure dislike their task just as much as do the judges. I do not criticise them, it would not lie in my mouth to do so, even if I desired to do so, which I do not.
The Amendment would have the effect that when the unfortunate widow goes out of court with her periodic payment she will be watched—because insurance companies will develop a system; they are bound to—for years and years to see whether there is any evidence that a "material change" has taken place. Suppose she lived in a small house and moved to a penthouse flat in Park Lane. That would put the sleuths on inquiry at once; they would be very negligent if they did not notice it. But that might be because she had remarried; it might happen because she had been fortunate enough to engage the interest of a wealthy admirer; it might be because she had won a sweepstake. There might be a million different reasons. But the sleuths are going to be after her; they are going to watch her and report to their principals. They will say, "Here is this lady whose standard of living has risen right up to the sky". If they found that a wealthy admirer had removed her from a cottage to Park Lane, she would be dragged back to court, and exactly the same questions would be put to her as were described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. She would have her periodic payments reduced. Can anything more repulsive be imagined?
I submit to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that he has failed to take into account the intensity of feeling about this; and he has also failed to take into account this consideration: that if there is one thing in this great country of ours, this free democratic society, that we value as much as if not more than anything else, it is our personal liberty to move about on our lawful occasions and to do what we want without being "snooped" on. Any proposal which would have the result of an insurance company paying more or less as the result of persistent "snooping" on an unfortunate widow whose husband has been
548
killed would, I should have thought, be utterly detestable, and I very much hope that the Committee will not accept it.
I have another five minutes, and I want to refer to the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson. He has taken a great deal of trouble about this but is it going to work any better? It starts off by saying that:
"the court may take into account in assessing the damages the fact of remarriage or the possibility of remarriage…"
That is an exordium which does not greatly commend this Amendment, certainly not to myself. Then the Amendment goes on:
"but the defendant shall not be allowed to adduce evidence or cross-examine the plaintiff or any of her witnesses as to the prospect of re-marriage unless the plaintiff has adduced evidence on that subject."
What in the wide world is "adducing evidence" on that subject? Suppose she puts on an old dress; is that giving evidence? I notice that the noble and learned Lord shakes his head. But why not? The lady is usually resplendent in the most up-to-date and admirable garments; but she goes into the witness box dressed in a most uninteresting and drab costume which she has raked out from the back of her wardrobe, one which she wore some thirty years—well, say some five years—before, and which she then found excited far too little interest and had far too little appeal. But she brings it out and wears it.
Her hair is usually beautifully done; but, by accident or design, on the occasion when she goes into the witness box it is not so beautifully done. Unkindly, Nature may have intervened by giving her a terrible cold in the head and she may have to dab her nose with her handkerchief and her countenance may be a little bit puffed. She may have slept badly and be rather pale that morning. Her countenance may not be suffused with that roseate hue which usually strikes delight in the onlooker. If she goes into the witness box, is she giving evidence as to her prospects? Why not? The Amendment does not talk about oral evidence, and even if it did it would not cure the situation. It is evidence. You go into the witness box and you present yourself. The learned judge looks at you. Are you not giving

549
evidence? If that is the case, is counsel to be able to ask her, "Your nose looks a little bit puffed and red this morning. Have you got a cold or have you done it on purpose?". It is an ingenious and painstaking endeavour, but it will not work.
I believe that the Committee is to resume discussion of another matter, not more important than this, and therefore I must draw my observations to a close. I deeply hope that the Committee will come to the conclusion that the remedies suggested by the noble and learned Lords whose contributions so enrich our discussions and have done so this evening, really do not meet the anxieties of those who have ventured to put this Bill before the Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether the Committee would bear with me? When I was consulted about this Bill I had hoped that this debate would confine itself to an hour and a half; but I have ascertained that there are at least three noble Lords who wish to speak, other than the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and in those circumstances I wonder whether, as we have reached 8.30 p.m., I might now move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.30 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("except where such a provision forms part of an agreement which was in existence before the commencement of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I think the words set down in the Marshalled List make very clear the purpose of this Amendment. The clause is described as related to pre-entry closed shop agreements, and the purpose of the clause is said to be to declare them void. But it appears to me that if one examines this clause, particularly subsection (1)(b) one finds that it goes a good deal wider than what I,
550
at any rate, have hitherto regarded as a pre-entry closed shop. Subsection (1)(a), of course, addresses itself to the pre-entry closed shop in the more generally understood meaning of that term. Without anybody being able to be quite precise, there are probably something like three-quarters of a million workers in the country who are covered by pre-entry closed shop arrangements that actually exist at the moment.
I want to make a general reference to some of the types of workers covered by such arrangements. Arrangements of this sort of course have commended themselves particularly in areas of employment where there is a great tendency for overcrowding of the occupation to take place. One clear example of this is the theatrical profession; and various members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lady White, have already referred to that position. It is a very striking characteristic of the theatrical profession that it is virtually impossible to define a qualification for entering it. One cannot refer exactly to a trade qualification, and one cannot refer to a professional qualification, as in the case of barristers or lawyers; and in essence the method of entering the theatrical profession is to secure an offer of a professional engagement from an employer.
In the light of this, and of the very considerable numbers of people who seek to enter a profession which is, as the noble Baroness said, already a desperately overcrowded one, the trade unions concerned—in full agreement, as I understand it, with the employers, or at any rate with all the responsible employers, who constitute the very considerable majority —have established a system of casting agreements. This I believe both sides of the industry, and those members of the public who have had occasion to examine this situation objectively, regard as being in the interests of the standard of performances as well as in the interest of creating a degree of security for the serious professional performer. There is still great anxiety—this is certainly our information—that the terms of this clause will destroy the major casting agreements, and the trade unions concerned have examined carefully and constructively suggestions made about other means by which the purposes of the casting agreements could be achieved, and

551
have reached the conclusion that although some of these appear attractive on paper they would inevitably break down in practice. That is one example, one industry.
Another example is the merchant service. Here again we have an occupation with many very special problems. In many ways it does not demand a particular objective standard of qualification. Recruitment to the merchant service could in theory take place in almost any part of the world where our ships touched, and it is very understandable, that, again in the interests of maintaining proper standards of staff, as well as some reasonable degree of security and some protection for conditions of employment, the principle of the pre-entry closed shop has for a considerable time been accepted.
One could look at many other industries where these problems or characteristics are present in greater or less degree, and where, as a consequence, the employer is threatened with the possibility of a shifting and unsatisfactory labour force, and those who engage in the occupation are threatened with insecurity, cut-throat competition for jobs, and an inevitable tendency for their standards to be driven down. I cannot understand how anyone who thinks about these occupations, of which I have taken but two examples, can really imagine that any good purpose will be served by this doctrinaire application of the concept of forbidding the pre-entry closed shop. The Donovan Commission devoted a great deal of time to the study of the closed shop, and a very realistic and critical analysis they made of it. They certainly did not regard existing arrangements as perfect, but I do not detect in their recommendations any proposal to apply this principle in the abstract and quite unrealistic way which the clause proposes.
But the clause goes further still, and I would direct the attention of the Committee to subsection (1)(b), and would invite the noble Lord to comment a little more upon that subsection, for this addresses itself not to trade union membership as I understand it, but to an agreement which purports
"to preclude an employer … from engaging workers who have not been recommended or approved for engagement by a trade union
552
or other organisation of workers specified in the agreement".
This is very much a variant, if I may say so, of what is normally understood to be the closed shop. It may well be that informal or formal arrangements of this sort do apply. If they do, I should be glad if members of the Government would say what harm they see in them. What is the objection to this form of arrangement? Indeed, what is the objection in principle to either of the arrangements set out in subsections (1)(a) or (1)(b)? Is it really the view of the Government that the arrangements for recruitment to an occupation should be the prerogative of the employer, and the employer only?
I have been addressing a number of questions to the Government on successive clauses, trying to elicit how they approach these things, not only in a static sense but in a sense of how they want to see things develop. I really should like to learn. I think that it is the Government's stand in principle that recruitment to an occupation should be in the hands of the employers only. If that is not their view, what measure of control over recruitment do they think those who are employed in the industry are likely to seek, since entry into it, if completely unregulated in the case of some of the occupations I have described, can constitute a most obvious threat to the maintenance of reasonable conditions.
I feel that this clause is open to many objections. Again we are always prepared to try to find ways of mitigating the worst consequences of the Government's doctrinaire policies, and it would be at least some alleviation of the situation, but by no means a complete one, if the Government would accept that where these arrangements already exist they should continue. If they reject this, I should be glad if they would say why they regard as unsuitable arrangements which employers have consented to, with an eye presumably to their own long-term interests and to the health of the industry, and what are the reasons which have led the Government to imagine that the employers in these industries where they have concluded pre-entry closed shop agreements in agreement with the trade unions and which have worked well are so irresponsible and so careless of the future of their industry and of the public interest. If there are criticisms, let the

553
Government make them. I think that it will frequently be found that any criticisms which can be made do not arise from the existence of the pre-entry closed shops but from other factors affecting the industry.
LORD BYERS: The noble Lord spoke of arrangements which have worked well. What we are worried about are the closed shop arrangements which have worked badly. Through the closed shop there has been victimisation. What is the protection there?
LORD DELACOIJRTSMITH: That is rather a different question. Here the Government are not addressing themselves to a difficulty which may arise from the closed shop. They are claiming as a matter of principle that a particular form of closed shop should be declared void. I am asking the Government what their justification is for taking this stand on general principles. At a later stage we can discuss the advantages and disadvantages, shortcomings and strengths, of the closed shop as a general principle, but I think that responsibility rests on the Government to justify departing from arrangements which have been arrived at in a number of instances, consented to fully by the employers, and to demonstrate why, as a general proposition, these arrangements should be declared void. I beg to move.
8.43 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord has moved this Amendment, if I may say so, in the cairn and reasoned terms in which he has moved many of his Amendments, and for this I am extremely grateful. I hope that he will not think that in saying this I am being in any way patronising, because that would be the last thing I should wish. I know that this is a point about which noble Lords opposite feel strongly and I am grateful to him that he should have moved it in the way he did. He invited the Government to say why they disagree with the pre-entry closed shop and I shall do my best to explain this to him.
As we see it, basically a person has, or should have, the right to be able to go and apply for a job of work where he wishes. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it would mean that where at the moment there is a pre-entry closed shop, a worker would be obliged to become a member of a trade union in ad-
554
vance of applying for work at that particular place. This would remove from him one of the basic rights in Clause 5 which we believe to be essential—the right to become or not to become a member of a trade union. He may be a fully qualified person, a person fully skilled to undertake the job which the particular factory has, but before he is able to apply for work he has to show that he is in possession of the appropriate union card. We know that strong arguments are put forward by noble Lords opposite about the closed shop, that it strengthens the unions and that solidarity of the unions depends on the large measure of support within the place of work. We accept these arguments, though we may not agree with them. But what we do not feel is correct is that before a person applies for a job he should necessarily have to show that he is in possession of an appropriate union card.
If this Amendment were accepted, it would have one effect; this would be to encourage unions to act now in advance of the Bill's becoming law and bring pressure on various employers to accept a pre-entry closed shop, because when the Bill becomes law they would not then have this facility. By so doing, they would in fact be denying a number of people—quite a large number of people—the right not to become members of a union should they so choose. The Bill as it stands gives a worker who is suitably qualified the right to apply for any job where his skills are adequate. We believe that to deny a person employment fix which he is suitably qualified simply because he is not in possession of a union card, or alternatively to enable an employer to terminate his employment because his union membership was terminated or was not accepted in the first place, is not a fair and just thing to do.
There would be many examples of a person being fully qualified and an employer entirely satisfied with his skills being refused employment, were this Amend dent to be incorporated in the Bill. We have tried to make provision for exceptional cases where there are strong arguments for a closed shop. The noble Lord referred to Equity. As we said earlier, there are provisions under Clause 16 to enable unions and managements where there are these particular problems to apply for approval of closed shop agreements. The noble Lord said

555
the casting agreements would be destroyed. I do not know that that is entirely the case, but the Secretary of State is in fact in negotiation with Equity and the representatives of theatre management in order to see whether there are specific problems which are not covered at the moment under this Bill.
The noble Lord said that the Donovan Commission said nothing about pre-entry closed shops. They said a good deal about the closed shop, and in paragraph 602 the Donovan Report said that although there were merits in the closed shop it should be possible to devise alternative means of overcoming the disadvantages which accompany it. It is those disadvantages that we have tried to overcome in the agency shop provisions, and we believe that it is basically fair and just that a person should be able to apply for employment at the place of his choice without first having to show that he holds the appropriate union card. That does not mean that the unions cannot enter agreements with management about the level of skills necessary or requisite for particular occupations, because of course they can negotiate with management to determine what levels of skills are necessary before entry into those occupations should take place. But that is not the same as saying that they should show in advance that they have the appropriate union card. For that reason, I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
8.50 p.m.
LORD BROWN: There are periods in this debate when one somehow gets the feeling that we are not talking about a real industry but about some fantasy in industry. The noble Earl on the opposite Bench has just made the point several times that if a man had to be a member of a particular union before he had any chance of obtaining occupation with a firm, then he would be denied the right to work in that occupation. That is not so. There are thousands of firms in the country which have not got closed shops or, for all I know, will not have agency agreements. The closed shop is probably the exception. All a man has to do is to go and apply for work in some concern—small, or many of them large—where there is not a closed shop. That is happening all the time now. People are
556
applying who have never been in a particular union in their lives before and are probably totally unskilled in the occupation. I used to run a company in Kilmarnock which to-day employs 3,000 people; only one was a member of the engineering union, and all except a very small percentage are employed there. These things are happening all over the country, and the noble Lord talks as if these things simply do not exist.
Turning to the Amendment, I am going to talk on the assumption that the Government are going to reject it. It is a pity that we have to talk in that way. The fact is that there are many closed shop agreements which are invaluable and were brought about voluntarily by management and unions. On the other hand, in acknowledging the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would say that it is quite true that there are a number of closed shop agreements which have been rammed down the throats of management by the power of unions and which have worked very badly. There is no sense in denying that that is the experience in industry.
LORD BYERS: If the noble Lord will permit me to say so, my comment was that it was not against management, but against workers. We have always stood up against the victimisation of the workers.
LORD BROWN: I am not going to question whether it is against management or against workers; the fact is that there are some which are bad from either point of view. Is it not possible for the Government to consider introducing an Amendment into the Bill which would make it possible for the existing pre-entry closed shop agreements or post-entry closed shop agreements to continue to exist, subject to an examination by the C.I.R. or something like that, so that existing good arrangements could continue, without all the disruption brought about by having to root out the bad ones? I suggest that that sort of practical approach to the continuance of what is good is the sensible way to go about it. I am sure it would please the Confederation of British Industry; it would certainly please the unions and it would help. If they are good ones and the C.I.R. says that they are good, let them continue. What is there against doing that?
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: May I support the proposition put by my colleague, Lord Brown. I agree that wherever there is absolute power there ought to be a proper check to protect the individual, and I hope that that will be considered. That does not militate against the very important proposition contained in this Amendment. First I should like to deal with the realities. In my experience, I do not think there have been many strikes to enforce the closed shop. Again, the closed shop is not the typical situation in British industry; where it exists it is often because there has been a good relationship between trade unions and employers and the employers themselves are quite happy to enter into the arrangement. They are the ones who complain about having to deal with a number of unions, and the closed shop contributes to a reduction in the number of unions, which suits the employers very well indeed. When it was said that if any concession were made on this matter it would result in pressure being brought to bear on the employers forthwith, before the Act came into force, may I say that, I doubt it very much, because the closed shop is an evolutionary process and not something that suddenly happens.
However, I think that there are more important points and not ones of a partisan nature. The description of this clause in the Bill is "Pre-entry closed shop agreements to be void". I do not know whether I am right, but it seems to me that this is retrospective legislation and this proposition is going to destroy agreements with employers, some of which may he eight or ten years old. That is something about which the Government ought to think very carefully indeed. Again, I know that some noble Lords are familiar with what happens in industry and some are not. Very often when we make ordinary trade union or industrial agreements, if certain things exist we try to carry them on by what we call a "better conditions" clause. Where a closed shop has been agreed and is in operation, if there is to be a change and it is going to be replaced by an agency shop, it is, as I said before, one of the slimmest distinctions that anyone could attempt to draw and the case for leaving the closed shop in existence is very strong. Certainly, if one says that this Bill is
558
really to help the trade unions, one should watch that very carefully indeed. I cannot understand that contention if closed shop agreements are going to be made void, because where they exist—there is only a limited number but those agreements are important—they have been brought about by legislation. Such a situation was created, for instance, in the coal industry. I think that that is a closed shop, and understandably so.
May I just indicate how a voluntary system works in relation to a closed shop? When the coal industry became nationalised my own union had 2,000 or 3,000 surface workers in the Yorkshire area, but we stopped acting for those workers because it made sense to allow one union to operate so far as the coal industry was concerned. We still have members, and my union pays virtually a fee to the miners' union annually to service those members. They are still notionally members of ours but we have had nothing to do with them since the incept on of nationalisation.
If the closed shop agreements are not continued as they exist at the moment and a new situation is begun, I submit that that is going to start an erosion of trade union organisation. It is putting an entirely new entrant into the industry. Picture an organisation where there is a 100 per cent. closed shop, with every man Jack in the union—and this, as I say, suits the employers fine. By retrospective legislation you are going to put an end to that, and any new entrant can be a member of a trade union, or, if he so wishes, he need not be. So, without getting emotional about this, I say that there is a good case for reasonable and equitable treatment here in considering this Amendment: that where the closed shop exists and is operated, it should be allowed to continue.
I want to make one final point. I agree with those who say that where abuse is possible the situation ought not to be allowed to continue. But it is not without significance that when examples of abuse are quoted in this Committee they are cases that have been taken to court and awards have been given to the individuals concerned. I make this point because the law is not so stupid as some people would have us believe. It is pretty sound now. If natural justice

559
is offended, a man has a great deal of protection. I should be happy, of course, if he had more protection. But I hope that thought will be given to this proposition: that where trade unions and employers have mutually agreed that in their particular situation a closed shop is a sensible thing, retrospective legislation should not interfere with some of the good arrangements that have gone on for so long.
VISCOUNT AMORY: A combination of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, can be a dangerously persuasive one. I only want to take up the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, on one point. I cannot think that the noble Lord really believes that this proposal amounts to retrospective legislation.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: If I may try to answer that, may I say that as a practitioner, I am sure that if the closed ship is made void, in every instance where my own union has a closed shop we shall have to start re-negotiating the agency shop. That is the alternative that is presented to us in the Bill. The amazing thing here is that all the evils that are quoted about the closed shop can become the evils in the agency shop, after a worker has been employed for about three weeks and if he still refuses to join a trade union.
VISCOUNT AMORY: That is rather a different point. I was on the somewhat limited point that this amounts to retrospective legislation.
LORD SAINSBURY: I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I should like to make one general comment. It strikes me that the longer we go on discussing this Bill, the more unreal it becomes in relation to the industrial life of this country and the more we deal in unreal generalities. Of course there are abuses of the closed shop. But there are hundreds of closed shop agreements that have been entered into, not under pressure from the trade unions but because the management believed that the closed shop led to harmony in the workplace. If that is not a good principle of industrial relations, I know nothing (perhaps I do not) about the subject that we have been discussing for so many hours.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: We have had a good debate on this Amendment. I want to touch on one point that I do not think has been sufficiently brought out, and then to move to another more technical point. First, I do not think that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have quite taken in a major point of the Government's case. That is not surprising, because the Government have kept this point of their case rather under the table. A major point of the Government's case is that if you ought to be on your guard against the power of the unions, you ought to be trebly on your guard when management and unions agree. That is really the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. This is the moment when the Government should step in to argue for the rights of individual workers. I think there is a lot in that point, and I feel that the Government might profitably state it publicly rather than, as they appear to have done, keep it quiet.
I hope that we are going to have a full reply to this debate, but I want to bring the noble Earl back to the question that I asked him just before we adjourned and which presumably he has now had time to think about. In his last speech the noble Earl brought out the Government's objection to the pre-entry closed shop. I am still puzzled by the wording of the clause. If the noble Earl and other noble Lords who were here when I spoke will forgive me for repeating myself—some noble Lords were not present—as I said, Clause 6 comes under the rubric:
"Pre-entry closed shop agreements to be void."
There are two subsections to the clause. The first is the businesslike one, and the second states only exceptions. Subsection (2) says that the main subsection does not apply under Clause 16. I still maintain that this can only mean that the closed shop agreements within the meaning of Clause 16 are pre-entry closed shop agreements. If that is not true, either the rubric on the side is incorrect, or what the Government are saying is incorrect. May we have an answer to-day?
EARL FERRERS: I shall certainly do my best to answer the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, while his point is fresh in my mind. There is a perfectly sound answer to this question, and it probably lies in the fact that the noble Lord

561
may be something of a purist. It is true that the rubric in the margin refers to the pre-entry closed shop agreements to be void, and merely in order to help the reader the clause goes on to say in subsection (2) that subsection (1) shall not apply to anything in Clause 16, lest the person who reads this should believe that this subsection did bite on Clause 16. It does not mean to infer that Clause 16 represents a pre-entry closed shop.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I am grateful to the noble Earl. What he is saying is that subsection (2) is purely helpful and does not of itself add anything to the Bill. It is not necessary.
EARL FERRERS: I did not say it was not necessary; I said it was in in order to be helpful. The interpretation that the noble Lord put upon it, that Clause 16 did incorporate a pre-entry closed shop was not correct. This is put here in order to be helpful.
There were one or two points to which noble Lords referred. One of them came I think from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Brown, also, that where good management exists, and where the agreement between the management and the unions is to have a closed shop, this in itself should be conducive to good management. I do not believe that this is so. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said that where unions and managements together agree to the existence of a closed shop that may very well be to suit their own convenience.
LORD BROWN: I think that inadvertently the noble Earl is rather misquoting me. I drew attention to the fact that there were good closed shop agreements and bad ones. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that where management and unions do not agree the liberty of the individual is likely to be much more severely affected than when management and unions do agree.
EARL FERRERS: That is possibly something t hat could encourage a debate in itself. All I would say is that, in the whole of this Bill, we have the great problem—how to draw the balance fairly and equitably between, on the one hand, the rights of individuals as individuals,
562
and on the other the rights of unions and collective bodies corporately; and how to strike the right balance between the right a an individual to do as he wishes, and on the other hand his responsibility to society and to his fellow workers and the bodies of people with whom he lives and moves. It is this that has permeated the whole of this Bill, to try and get a fair balance.
Several noble Lords have said that the closed shop is justifiable. This is a view which many people hold, but the pre-entry closed shop is only one facet of the closed shop, and it is the pre-entry closed shop that we feel is not in itself justified. It means that, where this exists, before getting any employment a person has to apply to a union for membership, and risk the possibility of being rejected. This we do not feel to be the best balance between the worker on the one side and his responsibility to the union on the other.
LORD BROWN: Could the noble Earl comment on the idea I put forward, that the Government might consider allowing pre-entry closed shops to continue subject to an examination by the C.I.R.
EARL FERRERS: That still means that before a person can get a job he first has to be accepted as a member of a union. The noble Lord says no, but it is possible for a person to go to a union and say, "Will you accept me as a member of your union?", and if the union says "No" he is unable to get a job.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I have been for 40 years closely associated with the printing trade, which is very often held up as one of the most flagrant of closed shops for rigidity. I have also been chairman of the British Employers' Confederation, and the first industrial training council where two important industries refused to help other industries in 1960 to find work for young people because of the operation of that closed shop. Lord Hill was one of them; my own industry was the other. I do not recognise, in forty years in industry anything in the closed shop world similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, suggested to-day. I am strongly in favour

563
of the Government proposals in this matter.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, may not recognise the closed shop in anything that my noble friend Lord Brown said, but we have to consider the realities, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said. There are closed shop agreements between employers and trade unions which are not sinister and have no wrong intent. In my own firm we have operated one for 35 years, and it is quite informal; there is no written agreement, it is understood and it works. We like all the workpeople to be in a union because it is very much more simple. It is a better way of going on. We deal with one man instead of with a lot of individuals. This is something which helps employers, but this Amendment is dealing with those pre-entry closed shop agreements which are formal.
I cannot understand why the Government fail to see the importance of continuing and preserving those agreements which are supported wholly by the employers and which unquestionably are for the benefit of particular industries. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, could not understand why my noble friend should have called this "retrospective legislation". If this Bill interferes with arrangements in my own firm, which have been going on for 35 years, I shall most certainly call it "retrospective legislation", and it will be.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I do not know whether I am allowed to make the same interruption a second time, but I must take issue with the noble Lord. Legislation not infrequently changes a situation, even forces different actions and conduct on people, and brings about the necessity for revisions of arrangements. There is no penalty involved here on anyone for anything that will have happened up to the time that this Bill becomes effective. I should have thought that that being so, any allegation of retrospective legislation must be out of order. I am a little sensitive about this because in another place I was accused of a crime worse than death: of myself introducing retrospective legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may remember the circumstances of that. That made a deep
564
and lasting impact on me, and I have been rather sensitive about this ever since. I believe that the noble Lord, when he thinks about this, will agree that what I have said is right.
LORD STONHAM: There will not be a statutory penalty applied in this instance, but the penalty will be loss of an agreement of benefit to employers and employees. That is bad enough.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: It seems to me that if there is a satisfactory closed shop agreement already working it should not be all that difficult to negotiate a new agreement which conforms with the Bill. The Bill does not make all that much difference at the moment, and if you have a perfectly satisfactory arrangement, for goodness sake review it and get one on much the same terms which conforms with the Bill. I am not the least impressed by the arguments on this side.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If I may make some observations on the contributions which the noble Earl has made, with respect I do not think he really met the major argument which I ventured to submit to the Committee in support of this Amendment. He took his stand on the absolute right of an individual to choose which job he would go into; which occupation he would follow. There is no absolute right. The right can be exercised only if an employer can be found to employ you, so do not let us talk as though workers ever had any absolute right to work anywhere.
EARL FERRERS: To apply to work anywhere.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think the noble Lord said, "To work". I think the noble and learned Lord has a contribution to make.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One does not want to make too many obstacles to work, anyway.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: There are obstacles to about 800,000 people in this country at the moment. But the point I put to the noble Lord, and to which he has not addressed himself, is this. There are professions or occupations which for one reason or another are particularly susceptible to overcrowding; occupations where there is no objective standard of qualification which can be

565
easily applied and where the occupation has an inherent attraction; where the employment in itself tends in one way or anather to be casual and where, in default of some such arrangement as this, the occupation can become very seriously overcrowded, with the result that people in it have insecurity of employment and that the employers in it find that they have a constantly shifting, unreliable and unsatisfactory labour force.
I quoted two occupations—and I could have quoted others—where these conditions which had existed in the past had led employers and trade unions to agree on a pre-entry "closed shop" arrangement. So far as my knowledge goes, neither in the case of the theatrical profession nor in the case of the Merchant Navy has anybody advanced a single scrap of evidence that these arrangements work badly, either from the point of view of the employer or from the point of view of the workers or of the public. I was a little puzzled by the intervention which came from the Liberal Benches about the undesirability of having good industrial relations—or, rather, the undesirability of having management and trade unions in agreement. I do not know whether the recipe for good industrial relations is for them to be in total disagreement.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: What about the Musicians' Union?
LORD DELAC'OURT'-SMITH: The Musicians' Union is of course another very good example and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for prompting it. Let us take the example of the Musicians' Union, where many people have virtually no regular employer. Very often an orchestra or band may be assembled for a particular engagement. I cannot see what arrangement one is going to have for an employer under Clause 16. What has he to do if he tries to establish an agreement under Clause 16? Must the man serve there a month within which he is going to join the trade union? As has been said by noble Lords behind me, we seem to be speaking about completely different industries.
LORD LINDGREN: They do not know what industry is.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think some noble Lords on the Benches opposite
566
have a rather bizarre idea in their minds of how trade unions operate and what the normal course of events is in industry. Those who make the legal approach have understandably usually had the opportunity of seeing an industrial relations situation at an exceptional moment of crisis, where trouble has probably built up over a long period. I do not think they always realise that what they see is a quite exceptional situation; and they do not appreciate the realities with which people have to deal who are concerned with the problems of industry day in and day out—not with a crisis situation but with the situation which consists of trying to avoid the crises.
The noble Lord also advanced as an argument that if this Amendment were adopted this would immediately precipitate a great rush of people to form "closed shops" so as to anticipate the law and take advantage of the clause as it would be if our Amendment were adopted. This is a rather strange conception, that there is a great pent-up desire; on the part of employers and trade unions to form closed shops.
EARL FERRERS: I know the noble Lord does not wish to misconstrue what I said. I never said that this would precipitate a rush, but that it could encourage this to happen.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I accept that it could encourage this to happen, but it would be very strange if in occupations such as this, employers and employees were to act in that way. I do not think it would be unreasonably accelerated if the Amendment were adopted. If the noble Lord will accept the spirit of the Amendment it could be incorporated later with the date, May 1, 1971, or some other date, if he believes this is a serious objection. The noble Lord has not met the main argument, and said whether he actually contends that in occupations which have these elements of uncertainty and insecurity which I have described—and given two examples of—it is the view of the Government that the workers must be completely powerless to influence the rate of entry to the industry, even if the regulation of the rate of entry is absolutely vital to stop serious overcrowding, serious under-employment, serious insecurity and worsening of conditions both from the point of view of

567
the workers and of responsible employers. I am sorry that he has not met these arguments. I must therefore advise my noble friends to press this matter to a Division.
9.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert
"(1A) Any worker who, on application to an employer, has been refused engagement, and who claims that the refusal was attributable (wholly or in part) to a provision in an agreement which had the effect of precluding the employer as mentioned in paragraph (a) or
9.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 95.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Diamond, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Serota, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Ken net, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Platt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Molson, L.

Airedale, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Falkland, V.

Moyne, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amery, V.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Barnby, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray, L.

Roberthall, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

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

St. Just, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hanworth, V.

Sandford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harcourt, V.

Savile, L.

Burgh, L.

Hatherton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Chesham, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Hood, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inchyra, L.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmany, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Templemore, L.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Teynham, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Thomas, L.

Dundonald, E.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mills, V.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section may apply to the Industrial Court for an order under the next following subsection.
(1B) If on such an application the Industrial Court finds—

(a) that an agreement is in force consisting of or including a provision so formulated as to have the effect specified in subsection (1A) of this section, however that provision is expressed and whether it purports to have that effect or not;

(b) that the refusal of the employer to engage the worker was wholly or partly attributable to that provision; and

569

(c) that the provision in question constitutes a substantial derogation from the rights conferred on workers by section 5 of this Act,

the Industrial Court shall make an order declaring that provision to be void".
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise on behalf of my noble friend, who will reply to the debate on this Amendment—if there is a debate—to move Amendment No. 56. I do not know whether this is likely to be a controversial Amendment and, if so, how controversial. It is in fact designed to stop an obvious gap. The Bill as it is drafted has a gap in it because the agreements made void under the terms of the Bill as drafted would have to provide for a pre-entry closed shop totidem verbis. But, of course, it would be very easy to drive the proverbial coach and the proverbial horses through such a provision, because you could say, for instance, that in order to be engaged a person would have to secure approval of two named persons, and that might have the same effect. Therefore, this Amendment is proposed, the effect of which is to give to a worker who is prevented from entering employment on grounds which he claims to be an effective pre-entry closed shop, an appeal to the court to establish that fact. If he fails to establish it, he cannot get in. If he does establish that it is an effective pre-entry agreement that has stopped him to a material extent, he wins his case and the agreement of which he complains is void. I do not think that there is more I need say about it, and I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I hesitate, needless to say, to cross swords in any legal spirit with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but we have taken such legal advice as is available to us, and we are very much concerned about this particular Amendment, because we find, quite frankly, that it could work extraordinarily badly in practice; at least, that is our apprehension. We assume that the object of it, among other things, is to close a loophole, if there were a tacit agreement that was not, possibly, a formal written agreement between the two sides. It may be partly this that the Government have in mind, and perhaps that could be made clear a little later on.
But if one looks at the practical nature of the consequences of this Amendment,
570
may we ask the noble and learned Lord just what is meant in the third line of (1)(A) by "wholly or in part", because it has been put to us that this might be a very difficult thing to determine. We are assuming that the employer, as well as the union, is a party to any such agreement, and that it is in the employer's interest, therefore, if he does not wish to employ a particular worker, to stand by the agreement, whether it is a formal agreement or an understanding—a tacit agreement. If he is brought before the Industrial Court by someone who is aggrieved, the court can ask him, what were his reasons for not offering an engagement to this particular person, and the employer has a number of answers which he would be able to give. He could say that the person concerned was not adequately skilled for the particular job; that he may be too old, or too young, for the responsibility of the position; that he may have a poor health record; that he may live rather far from the place of employment and there may be travelling difficulties if the workers are on shifts, and so on. He might, nevertheless, have at the back of his mind that the man is not in fact a member of the union with which he, the employer, is in agreement, and with which he has satisfactory relations.
What does "in part" means? Is he permitted, at any interview with a prospective employee, to inquire whether the prospective employee is a member of a union? If he asks him this question, would this be taken as evidence that, in part, his ultimate refusal of employment was on that account? We can see all sorts of complications here. We are very much concerned about it, because it will be appreciated that any aggrieved individual who has not been appointed to a job, and who can make any suggestion that there is some sort of agreement between the employer and the union or unions concerned, can go to the industrial court and take up the time of the Industrial Court. I submit that this is an important consideration because the Industrial Court, after all, is the senior court. There are industrial tribunals, but this goes to the Industrial Court, as I understand it. Therefore, we should be very circumspect indeed in laying burdens upon the Industrial Court unless we are quite sire what is the nature of the representations which may be made to them.

571
I can only say that we have been advised (by such legal advice as we have been able to obtain from those who have more experience certainly than I have in any such matters), that this part of the proposed Amendment could lead to endless, mischievous and irritating litigation before the Industrial Court by various persons who might feel they ought to have had a job and did not get it, and who can produce all kinds of reasons why they believe that why they did not have the job was because of some sort of collusion (shall we put it?) between the employer and the union, or unions, concerned, and that this was the barrier. A great deal of time will have to be spent by the court, by people representing the parties, by the employers, in making certain that in every single case where they do not engage a worker where there might be any sort of prima facie suggestion of an agreement between employer and unions, they would presumably have to keep a tape recorder to record what questions they had put when the man came to be interviewed for employment, because even if it was in part—and we do not know what proportion "part" means—an element in the decision of the employer not to employ the person, then presumably this subsection could be invoked.
Turning to (1B), we are also worried about this because it is not clear to us quite how one would deal with the situation before the Industrial Court if they were considering:
"that an agreement is in force consisting of or including a provision so formulated as to have the effect specified in subsection (1A) of this section, however that provision is expressed and whether it purports to have that effect or not".
We have called this Bill a "lawyer's picnic", and surely words of that kind could provide some skilled legal representatives with the most ample opportunities for argument. Therefore, we are very much concerned not only with the whole principle of the clause, which we do not find very attractive, but also with the drafting which seems woolly and inconclusive and likely to lead to endless arguments before the Industrial Court, taking up a great deal of everybody's time and, we suggest, to little effect. So it would help us very much indeed if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain how he sup-
572
poses that these two subsections of this Amendment will be handled in the Industrial Court, and could give us any sort of assurance that they can be handled in such a way that they will not be open to the sort of objections which have been put to us by people experienced in these matters, who say that this Amendment is very unhappily drafted.
9.46 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether this will lead to a debate on the merits of what the noble Baroness has been putting to me, but may I reply because she has asked perfectly legitimate questions and it may be that I can answer them? Her fears about subsection (1A) are really groundless, because if she looks at the terminology she will see at once that this is not something which the Industrial Court will have to determine at all. It simply indicates the circumstances in which the worker can make an application, and that is when he says that there is an agreement in force. What the Industrial Court will have to determine is subsection (1B). That simply states that if a workman thinks he has a particular kind of grievance, he can then apply to the Court which will then have to determine the facts in subsection (1B), and it is subsection (1B) which is the operative one from the point of view that the noble Baroness is putting forward.
The worker has to prove three conditions. There may be difficulties in them, but they are all difficulties in the way of the worker. They are not difficulties in the way of the tribunal or in the way of the trade union. They are difficulties in the way of the applicant, and the applicant is the worker who says that he has a grievance. What is the nature of the grievance? The grievance is that, although in form there is no pre-entry closed shop agreement, there is in operation an agreement which looks like something else but is a pre-entry closed shop agreement. I gave an example when I opened. If I said that nobody shall get employment as my clerk unless he has met with the approval of the Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the President of the Students' Union, that would not in form be a pre-entry closed shop agreement, but you might well argue that it had the same effect. In other words, the subsection is designed to

573
prevent evasion. It is not designed to deal with the case of a covert agreement, which you probably cannot deal with at all if it succeeds in remaining covert. It is designed to deal with the case of a bogus agreement calculated to outwit the Act.
In order to succeed in subsection (1B), a worker has to achieve three conditions and all the difficulties are his, because the burden of proof remains on him throughout. The first is paragraph (a), to show that there is an agreement of some kind in force. If there is no agreement of any kind between the employer and the trade union, or he cannot prove that there is, then that is an end of the case before he begins. Then he has to show what the agreement includes, and it must include a provision which has the same effect as is prohibited by the burden of the Act; namely, it must have the same effect as a pre-entry closed shop even though, in fact, it is not one in form.
Secondly, he has to show that he has been refused employment; otherwise, he has no grievance at all, however many agreements there are. Thirdly—it is part of the second provision, paragraph (b) of (1B)—he has to show that that refusal was wholly or in part due to the operation of the agreement. In other words, if all that he can show is that the employer shook his head and said, "No, you are too young", or, "No, you are too inexperienced", or, "No, you have not the necessary qualifications", or, "No, we already have an applicant, and we like him better", he does not succeed. He has to show that not only is there an agreement with an offensive provision in it, but that he was refused employment because of it. My mind goes back very much to the debates I had in another place in Committee on the Race Relations Bill, when I was, if I may say so, arguing the opposite case. The answer I always got from the Labour Party was a very much less convincing answer than I am giving now. The answer which I am giving now is convincing because, although there are some difficulties, they are all difficulties in the way of the applicant; they are all difficulties of which the union and the employer, who are "in cahoots" with one another ex hypothesi in this case, can take advantage.
574
Further, he has to show that the provision which he objects to is not something which, by some wild cast of the imagination, might conceivably be regarded as offensive to the pre-entry closed shop prohibition. It has to be substantially offensive to that provision. So he really has a very difficult row to hoe. Without taking away this anti-evasion provision, I do not really know that we could make it more difficult. I am not criticising the legal advice which the noble Baroness says she has had—I am sure she has had it—but I think perhaps her anxieties have been excited by this advice beyond the bounds of what is really reasonable.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sits down, perhaps he could help me. I understand that (1B) relates to what the Industrial Court can do and finds. The new subsection (1A) relates to the application of the worker. Can the noble and learned Lord tell me how "wholly or in part" help that provision in any way for a worker? Assuming the words were not in, it would read,
"who claims that the refusal was attributable to a pro vision in an agreement",
et cetera. The other part that the noble and learned Lord mentioned, concerning the Industrial Court, relates to the worker. How is he affected by the inclusion of these words, or how would he be affected by the exclusion of those words?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is a pretty obvious question, really. Oddly enough, it was that very point which led me to recall the debates on the Race Relations Bill. Suppose you have a black man who comes in for a job, the employer does not want to employ him, and the black man is dead sure it is because he is a black man. The employe- says, "It is true I do not like black man very much, but actually this man stuttered", or, "this man did something else that I do not like, and it was partly due to that"; so he does not get the job. Unless you put the words "in part" in your provision against discrimination, you cannot protect him. This is designed to prevent the prevaricating employer who says, "It is true he was not a member of the union, it is true that the agreement prevented it, but I thought he lisped rather and he would be bad for

575
my customers, because I did not like the look of him". Then the employee is entitled to say that "in part" it was due to the provision, even if the employer is telling the truth, which he probably is not.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Do I take it that this is to protect the worker against the employer?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. It is so designed. It is the one provision which makes the task of the applicant easier. It is the one piece of phraseology in the anti-evasion clause which makes it easier for him. The rest is all the difficulties put in his way.
BARONESS WHITE: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, but I am still not entirely happy about this. I believe that the Industrial Court will be troubled by applications to it. It will take a great deal of time. I am also concerned about the consequences for industry. The new subsection (1B)(b) says:
"That the refusal of the employer to engage the worker was wholly or partly attributable to that provision;"
Surely this means that the employer or his representative is likely to be called upon to give evidence. One will not simply take the word of the aggrieved non-employee. Will it not mean that the employer will have to keep careful records of anybody to whom he does not give a job?—and he may not know this at the outset of an interview. Will this not be a burden on the personnel department of large firms, and an even greater burden on smaller firms with no such departments. This aspect certainly concerns the employer. I can see the Government's point of view. They want to block a possible loophole. But it will be a burden on the Industrial Court, and on the employer, and not only on the worker.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I doubt whether the Industrial Court need cause the noble Baroness much anxiety. Assuming that it does its job properly it will know how to deal with frivolous applications. But the second point overlooks the fact which I tried to emphasise, that before you can invoke this clause and get it airborne you must prove that there is an agreement in force the effect
576
of which is offensive in the sense that it would create a pre-entry closed shop. Until that moment arrives it does not get airborne. When that moment arrives the applicant is in a better position than if he had failed to start; but even then he is only at the beginning of the "snakes and ladder" course, because he has then to establish (b). I am afraid that the history of the Race Relations Board, which has similar problems to consider, has shown that a lot of people think that because they did not get a job it was for the reason that the Act provided, when usually it was for some personal shortcoming of their own. If a case cannot be established the employer will not have to give evidence at all. But if the applicant claims that the employer said, "You are not a member of union 'X' and I have an agreement with 'X' and cannot employ you—and anyway I don't like your face in the bargain", then I think the employer would have to give evidence.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 57.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("Subsection (1)") and insert ("Subsections (1) to (1B)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.0 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("in so far as it constitutes, or would constitute") and insert ("of").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, which in many respects is a very technical Amendment and one which at one time might have been called a paving Amendment, I do not feel that I should deploy the main case, which I think would be more appropriately done at a later stage of the debate. May I say, first, that I intervene in this debate as one who has had some considerable experience in industrial relations but, unlike most of my colleagues on this side of the Committee, my experience has been entirely as representing in industrial relations the employer's side of the case, either as representing a company or as representing an employers' association. So I do not come to a consideration of the Bill without some

577
considerable experience over a great many years. What I am leading up to concerns the clauses which deal with fundamental things—and at this stage I should apologise to the Committee for not being here earlier in the clay when from the Liberal Benches some Amendments were moved which had a bearing on this matter, but I was unavoidably absent from the Committee.
Probably the main debate on what I have in mind would come under either Amendment 128A or 135A, and I hope the Government will either accept this technical Amendment, or agree that it might be referred, if necessary, to a later stage.
The point I am mainly concerned with has been dealt with already this evening by my noble friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and others. It refers essentially to the problems concerning Actors' Equity. I am bound to say that I do not think the realities of this situation have been understood on the other side of the Committee. We have had a lot of theoretical arguments which bear no relationship to the actual situation, if I may say so. There has been this discussion about the pre-entry and the post-entry closed shop, but there is something in between, and that is what might be called "the point of entry closed shop". I know this situation mainly from the film industry side rather than from the theatrical side.
If a film producer wants to employ a German or American actor, or an actor in this country who is not a member of Equity, he puts his case, and if Actors' Equity disagrees it goes to a council for consideration. If the council decides that this particular person should be employed and then, on the point of engagement, he agrees to join Actors' Equity, it is not pre-entry membership of Equity; it is not post-entry. It is just at the point of engagement. He agrees that the council, or Equity without going to the national council, may agree that he is an appropriate person. He agrees, and they agree, that he should become a member. It does not fall into either of the categories of pre- or post-entry. This is something that I think the Government might look at again.
We are concerned that all employers should conform to the standards arranged between Equity and the appropriate employers' organisations. In other words, all we are asking is for the retention of the
status quo. This is one of the cases where the status quo has operated without, I think, any hardship to either side. It was either the noble Lord, Lord Byers, or the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who talked about cases of victimisation; but I do not know of such a case having arisen on this. That is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is that this is a particular industry where the flood of new entrants must be kept within reasonable bounds. There has been talk about qualifications. That may apply to the legal profession, the accountancy profession, or to the chartered surveyors' profession. But when you start to talk about the acting or dramatic profession you are entering a field so wide as not to give the word any meaning at all.
If you take the output of all the drama schools, and assume that all those who get their diplomas from them have qualifications, there would be as many entrants a year as the total membership of Actors' Equity; and far more than the profession could possibly absorb. You would have young entrants offering to work for £2 a week, or for nothing, in order to get in, and that is a nonsense. I may be trespassing beyond the bounds of this Amendment, but I am trying to indicate that it is a paving Amendment for other Amendments which would maintain the power to require unwilling employers to come into line with those who accept the main provisions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him? Would he mind repeating for which Amendments this is a paving Amendment?
LORD ARCHIBALD: I would not like to be held to this but I think it is Amendments Nos. 128A and 135A. There may be others, but as I have been away for 24 hours I have not been able to check with absolute accuracy. If the noble Lord will agree, I will look at this again and advise him. My point is that this applies in the film industry and in the theatrical industry. In the film industry the situation is peculiar. Generally there is a main company, which we may call "A.B.Q."

579
—in case I should be thought to be refering to an existing company—and for each film they set up a different company. The main company is a member of the employers' association and is bound by the agreement. But they set up "A.B.Y." as the company to make the film, for reasons which, as a layman, I would not know; it may have something to do with taxation. This new company, "A.B.Y.", is not itself a member of the employers' organisation and would not necessarily be bound by the membership of what is not exactly the parent corporation, but at least the dominant corporation.
Again, in the theatrical field I am told that there is at least one major theatrical employer who will not join any of the theatrical associations and therefore is not technically bound by any of their agreements. If this Bill is to be effective it should require the—I do not want to say the fly-by-night employer, because that might be slanderous, but the unwilling employer to conform to the standards agreed by the good employers. That is what I am leading up to. I do not think the Government would disagree in principle with anything I have said, and I hope that at a later stage we may be able to agree upon Amendments to give effect to the principles which I have mentioned. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful for the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. The trouble is that she did not exactly show what he wanted to be the effect of the Amendments which he moved. He regarded them as paving, but he did not say what effects they would have. It may shorten the discussion if I were to say I had been prepared to accept these Amendments purely as drafting Amendments. Of course, as they are paving Amendments I might be tempted not to accept them after all, but I think it would be only fair in the circumstances to say that, as we were going to accept these anyway, we shall accept them. That will give the noble Lord an opportunity to move his Amendments, if indeed they are necessary for the Amendments he has to move later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I beg to move Amendment No. 57B.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 42, leave out ("in so far as it constitutes") and insert ("of").—(Lord Archibald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: At an earlier stage we sought to move an Amendment which would have limited somewhat the deleterious effects of the clause which is now before us, and in moving that I explained the reasons why we felt this clause was an unhelpful one. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments which I then used, save once more to say that I do not feel that the Government spokesmen have so far met the main argument which I sought to advance. We have had no clear indication of what value they think arises from subsection (1)(b). It is really a very vague formulation. One knows, for example, that there are some cases of unions which have agreements with employers, specifying qualifications which workers engaged should have. There are other cases of men who are engaged on heavy manual work on a piecework basis, where there are agreements the purpose of which is to ensure that any additional men recruited are of a very good physical standard, so that there is no diminution of the group piecework earnings. There are all sorts of arrangements which might be brought under subsection (1)(b) which are practical and reasonable arrangements and would assist in the creation of a good and reasonable atmosphere.
I must again make the point, which has not to any degree been met by the spokesmen of the Government, that our concern is particularly acute in the case of industries of the kind I have already described, where no specific qualifications are required beyond acceptance by the employer and where, because of the character of the occupation, there is a great danger of overcrowding and a reduction of standards, to nobody's advantage. I am extremely glad to hear the noble Lord say that the Secretary of State is still in discussion with Equity and I take it with other unions in the entertainment field, because we certainly feel that their position has not been adequately met. I also took as an

581
example the Merchant Navy and I trust that at some stage of the Bill the Government are going to endeavour to find a way of meeting the very real problems which exist there. There are other industries where similar difficulties, to a greater or lesser degree, arise.
And the noble Lord has not met the point that the implication of what the Government are saying is that it is purely and solely for the individual employer to recruit workers that happen to suit him—the irresponsible employer just like the responsible, and it is the responsible employer who is going to be hit by the application of arrangements of this sort. It seems to be the point of view of the Government that workers collectively are not entitled to expect any arrangements which will enable them to protect the industry, in which the serious and dedicated workers effect their livelihood and careers, from this wholesale inflow of people who can reduce standards. This is a real problem, and I wish the Government would give some indication of their thinking about it and not merely fall back on these no doubt well-meaning but frankly somewhat platitudinous and in some cases unreal general observations.
I am still completely mystified by subsection (2). I did not understand it before and I still do not understand it after the explanation which the noble Lord gave. It did not seem to me that he met the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The last point I want to make is this. It is all very well for the Government to say, in comforting fashion, that if there is a good case for it, then the employers and workers concerned will no doubt get together and create either an agency shop agreement or a closed shop agreement. I do not want to anticipate matters we shall be discusing under Clause 16, but a closed shop agreement can hardly come into existence overnight. Therefore I take it that the Government have appreciated that even if the most speedy steps are taken following the passing of the Act to operate Clause 16, these arrangements would inevitably lead to a gap of time, which surely would produce a most unsatisfactory and disturbing hiatus. I believe that this is a clause at which the Governments
582
should be prepared to look again quite fundamentally. My noble friends and I have made quite clear our criticisms of it. We must confess that we do not feel that they have been fully met, and we regret that the Amendments that have been put forward to try to mitigate the serious consequences were not accepted by the Government.
LORD BROWN: I should like to make a rather separate point on Clause 6 which the Government may not have foreseen. I may be wrong about this, but it is the way I read it. Clause 6 makes provision that any agreement which precludes an employer from engaging a worker because he is not a member of a particular organisation of workers is void unless there is an agency shop agreement in existence. The unexpected result of this could be, so far as I can see, that unless an employer has an agency shop agreement he is precluded from advertising in a form that is not uncommon, saying that an applicant must be a Member of the British Institute of Management, or a Member of the Institute of Personnel Management, or a Member of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, because he is then saying that the applicant must be a member of an organisation of workers, otherwise he need not apply. If that is the result of Clause 6, we ought to understand that it is so. I should regard it as rather serious. If it is not so, I should like it to be explained why it is not.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, who put forward, I thought, a very direct argument. I would declare my interest. One company in which I am heavily involved has at least six unions working together, and they are all closed shops. Although they are not always as helpful as my colleagues and I should like, we prefer the closed shop. There are practical benefits in dealing with a 100 per cent. union shop. It makes for stronger unions, and I gather from the debate last night that that is what the Government are trying to secure. As my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith said, some of these trades are overstaffed. Some of the members of film and theatrical organisations—the A.C.C.T, the N.A.T.K.I., E.T.U., Equity, and the National Union of

583
Journalists—are in trades which are overstaffed and under-employed. The need to underline this problem is a matter for rather urgent Government attention. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that when management and unions agree it is at the expense of the worker—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I did not say that, and I certainly would not have said it. I agree that when management and trade unions agree it is very often a good thing. I merely say that that is the moment when the State should be aware that the rights of the workers need safeguarding.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Then I withdraw that. Hansard will tell us to-morrow what was actually said.
I thought the point of the Bill that the Government are putting forward was to make the unions stronger and to create industrial peace. As every employer knows, the closed shop has produced problems and has affected industry. But how much has it affected industry? How much has it been responsible for strikes? Nobody has come forward with any facts in this Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, produced some few facts the other night which I should like to have the opportunity of taking up with him quietly at another time. A noble Lord opposite gave the printers' union as an example of where closed shop troubles have caused serious problems for the industry. Could it be that the printing employers are partly or completely responsible for the troubles? It was said on the Front Bench in the other place that weak management has produced difficult unions. It could be that in this matter the Government are right.
Incidentally, why the agency shop? I have read the Bill time after time and find it hard to understand the legalistic jargon. Why not just say that any worker in a closed shop, if he is a genuine conscientious objector, should have the right to pay union dues to a charity without formally acquiring membership. That seems to me to be simple and direct, and to save a lot of legal jargon. I think the closed shop provisions more than any other in this Bill show a Canute-like attempt to change social mores by Act of Parliament. I
584
urge the Government to think again on this matter, which affects millions of people.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Would the noble Lord not admit that the closed shop is a great cause of restrictive practices? It has been in my experience.
LORD BERNSTEIN: What are restrictive practices? If you can define that for me in terms that I can answer I will try and get some information.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: One of the questions which we have been asking is how much real consultation has there been with the T.U.C. before clauses like this have been drawn up. I see in this Clause 6 an effort—and with the agency shops—to build sporadic types of unions that will undermine trade unionism as we understand it. We are told, my Lords, that there are certain boons, gifts and encouragement in this legal framework we are building for the unions. The agency shop we shall talk about in depth when we reach the famous Clause 10, and we will get some information on it.
What is presented here in Clause 5, and the elements that overlap in Clause 6, will mean the doom of scores of tiny but effective unions in very skilled trades that are still needed in this technological age. There are still great crafts and trades that are small but effective, and in some cases because 16 men in a special craft could keep 1,000 others out of work, some people have spiked that down as one of the jealousies against the trade union movement, because it is alleged that such a thing has happened. A formula has been discovered in Clause 6 which I believe will lead to bitterness if this Bill ever becomes effective. It will not become effective; the way we are going there will be a General Election before it is effective. This Bill will destroy some of the best of the great craft unions. There is an effort here—hidden, but it is there—and I will explain it when we get to the famous Clause 10, for industrial unionism and plant unionism.
Lastly, this forward looking Government we have, that wants us to rush like Gaderene swine into the Common Market, what is to be the effect of this type of unionism when we take a quarter of a million unemployed Italian workers into the country?
A NOBLE LORD: The right of movement.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Ah, the right of movement. It is no good the Liberal Party saying "Ah, ah" or "Oh, oh"—they have been saying that for 40 years. That is why they are where they are. We want ultimately a European system of unionism, but if there is to be a movement of people we want a system that will be not weakened but strengthened. One of the purposes of the Common Market was said to be mobility of labour. One side argues that you must have a Common Market and move "you backward workers of Britain", and have mobility of labour. At the same time as you secure a mobility of labour you build a cast iron legal framework, spiked down with sparks and spanners, which human beings can never break out of. My figure of speech expresses this perfectly. This is a legal binding to hold people in at one moment, when at the other moment you are asking for mobility of labour. It has neither common sense nor logic.
It has been a very pleasant debate to-day. I said this afternoon when we started this debate that I had heard a little girl from Bristol University on the nine o'clock news saying that this is the "Be Nice Day", and everybody should smile at everybody else. We all started smiling at the talented Government. I am hoping that when the kindly noble Lord stands he will make a concession —and he has made some already—and say that at least he will take this clause away for a week and have another look at it.
10.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not want to reduce the kindly atmosphere and spoil it in any way, for I welcome it. There has been a certain amount of misapprehension that still exists on this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who has just talked to us so agreeably, has said that there is a danger if we go into the Common Market of a great influx of workers; but one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, perhaps misunderstood, too, is that there is nothing in this clause, or any of the provisions here, that would prevent the laying down of qualifications for entry. Nothing will prevent agreement between the unions and the
586
employers about what those qualifications should be. It is totally mistaken to think that it is essential to control all entry to certain professions, or the regulation of entry to certain professions, and that those who come into these professions must first be union members.
If it is accepted that there is an overcrowding problem, then this can be met by raising the standards of qualification for entry. It can be met by restricting the newcomers to a fixed proportion of those already employed by apprentice ratio; it can be met by requiring a particular degree of experience in some related field or occupation, and I have no doubt in other ways. What is prevented—
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I quoted repeatedly two examples. I appreciate that there are various methods of regulating entry to an occupation. Would the noble Lord relate those to the two examples that I gave; and would he say what part, if any, he thinks the trade unions are entitled to play in effecting that regulation? The two examples were the theatrical profession and the merchant navy. Would he say, in general terms, what part he thinks the workers, through their trade unions, are entitled to play in controlling entry to an occupation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: In general terms, the first way in which the workers can be brought in is by consultation on the general prospects of the industry, and the recruitment needed to meet them. Noble Lords have failed to distinguish between the qualifications, and so forth, on the one hand that can be laid down and, on the other hand, the individual applicant. So far as the individual applicant is concerned, what will be prohibited is the requirement that as a condition of his getting the job he should already be a member of a particular trade union, or he should be recommended by a particular trade union. That is what will be stopped here, and we believe it is highly desirable to stop this. I will come to the noble Lord's point. We do not see any harm whatever that can result from the removal of the pre-entry closed shop. It has been admitted on all sides to-day that there are cases where the closed shop does harm—the pre-entry closed shop does do harm. It is to meet

587
those particular cases that this provision is made.
On the previous Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, dealt with this very special issue of agreements where one can say that the applicant joins the union and is taken on practically simultaneously. Under the agency shop it is simply a condition that if a man is taken on he must join the union or pay a contribution. No doubt when he is taken on he will then undertake to join the union. He can do it the next minute—I do not know what you call "simultaneous"—if he likes; if the union will have him. That is another point—if the union will have him.
I hope that I have covered that point, but there is just one other point I should like to deal with. It is a very important point which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, raised. He raised the question of voiding of existing arrangements through the voiding of the provision for a pre-entry closed shop. As I understand it, if you make a provision in an agreement void you do not necessarily make the whole agreement void; you make only that provision in the agreement void. What one is left with, then, is something very like the agency shop. I doubt very much whether you will need a great deal of negotiation to make it conform with an agreed agency shop. The only thing is that one must allow those who do not want to belong to the union to opt out of membership, if they so wish, and make a contribution to union funds instead. I would doubt very much indeed whether there would be many people exercising that right, but in our view it really is important that that right should exist. So I really do not think there is very much in this.
I owe it to the Committee also to give a little explanation on subsection (2), which looks a very formidable one. In fact, it is purely declaratory. Indeed, it is merely saying that this clause shall not apply to an agency shop agreement or to an approved closed shop agreement; because both of these practices would not be "on". The pre-entry closed shop could not apply either. So that is the explanation of that. I think noble Lords opposite thought it was something rather formidable. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, sought to link it with subsection
588
(1). It is not linked, except in the sense that agency shop agreements and approved closed shop agreements cannot be affected because by their nature it would be impossible for them to contain any element of a pre-entry "closed shop".
LORD BROWN: May I—
LORD SHACKLETON: Before my noble friend Lord Brown speaks, may I say that for some time I was absent from the Chamber. I came back in a spirit of optimism, believing that the Government might understand precisely what they are doing in this legislation, but I do not believe the Government have answered the points made by my noble friend Lord Brown. I hope that he will come in again on this debate. Least of all have the Government understood the points made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, with reference to the position of craftsmen. These points were spelled out by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith in a different context in regard to actors and seamen, but there has been no reply from the Government.
I must say to Lord Drumalbyn, who is treating us with his customary civility, that I do not believe he really understands what he is advocating. I say this quite seriously. I question seriously whether any of the noble Lords behind him actually appreciate it, other than the generalised idea that somehow it is wrong to require people to belong to a union. It is this aspect of the Government's indifference to the reality of the situation, particularly in relation to craft unions, that we find disturbing. A degree of co-operation, whether it is a condition or not, is essential. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, with his previous experience at the Ministry of Labour and so forth, must know that it is sensible that there should be cooperation between trade union secretaries and others sometimes amounting to an explicit agreement and sometimes not. What he has in fact been saying is that one can require qualifications provided that does not involve the qualification of belonging to a particular trade union. I wonder whether the noble Lord has fully grasped the practical objections to this.
I ask the noble Lord to address his mind particularly to the points made by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith

589
and others of my noble friends. We are now clearly moving into the crunch of the Committee stage when we must probe the intentions of the Government to find out whether they understand precisely what they are doing. It is our contention that in certain respects—and I am sure that many noble Lords with experience of trade union matters agree—the Government's case does not stand up. I hope that an attempt will be made to answer some of our criticisms.
LORD BROWN: I do not want to continue discussion on the point I made earlier, but I want to get something on to the record because I am trying to be helpful. We all remember that we did not do as good job as we ought to have done on the Race Relations Act. There was the case of a doctor in Bournemouth who advertised for a Scottish cook because he wanted his porridge made properly, and he was prosecuted. This was reported in the Press. I am trying to avoid any similar mistake being made. An employer who has not an agency agreement might advertise saying that he wants someone who is a member of a particular trade union or organisation of workers. He may be breaking the law if the association of workers which he names falls within the ambit of Clause 59(1)(a) which defines an organisation of workers. It is possible that some of the organisations referred to by noble Lords on the Government Front Bench as professional associations might be concerned. The Lord Chancellor brushed me aside several times saying that I was wrong, but he was talking to a man who has had a great deal of experience. If you get caught by Clause 59(1)(a) because you will not listen to me, be it on your own head. That is all I have to say.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I apologise for not dealing with that particular point. As I understand it, there is a differene between an organisation in its capacity of negotiating terms and conditions of employment through collective bargains, and in other capacities which have nothing to do with that. But I will gladly look into that point., and if the noble Lord really has found something we shall be exceedingly grateful to him. I am sorry I did not cover that point. I am afraid I was diverted by his previous point, and I thought at that time that noble Lords were anxious to get on.
LORD SHACKLETON: We want answers, too.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought I had answered every point that was made.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought the Committee was getting a little impatient to get on. I know I did not answer the point about the actors and the seamen; the reason for that is that we shall have an occasion to debate that when we come to Clause 16. I do not want to be forced to debate again and again the same point. In fact, it was out of order.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: It is no good he noble Lord saying that. It was his side of the House that drew up the Bill in this way, not our side. If the Bill is so drawn up that it necessitates repeated discussion of the same or a closely related point, that is because of the way in which such legislation is drafted. We are speaking on this clause in particular in respect of the two industries which I have mentioned and about matters which are regarded by people in those industries as being vital to their livelihood: the destruction—and nobody has denied this—of arrangements which have existed for many years and which have preserved good standards in those industries. I have repeatedly invited the noble Lord to address himself and to apply his generalities to the circumstances of those two industries. Also I have repeatedly asked that we should be told what, if any, is the Government's conception of the part that the trade union is entitled to have in the control of entry to an industry or occupation where overcrowding is a serious danger and a threat to standards. The only answer I have had on that point from the noble Lord is an airy statement, "Oh yes, we, the Government, believe that there should be consultation with the trade unions about the level of entry to the industry". I think I am representing correctly what he said. But how on earth does he expect that the results of that consultation will be made effective? Are the results of that consultation to rest solely and entirely in the hands of the employers? Is that his conception?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Is it his conception?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have already said that it would be a matter for consultation, and consultation could no doubt result in agreements.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am fully aware of that. What I am asking is how those agreements are going to be made effective, and I am asking, if it is the noble Lord's conception that once an agreement has been made that the level of entry to a particular industry should be retained at a certain level, how that is to be made effective. I can only conclude from his answer that it should be done entirely by the employers. Is the noble Lord contending—if that is his contention, as it must be—that the employers are so organised that they can effectively maintain, in the light of consultation, a measure of control in industries of this sort? Can it possibly be done without giving to the trade union some share in the control? I am not making debating points; I am asking a question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: You are.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If I am making debating points no doubt one of the noble Lords who is so ready to contribute while in a sitting posture will rise and will explain to me and to the Committee how in fact regulation can be made effective in industries of the kind I have described, after consultation, if the trade unions are not going to be given a real share in making effective the agreements which it is suggested they should make. I am suggesting that there is no reason to think that this sort of consultation can be translated by the employers alone into effective regulation of numbers. I am perfectly prepared to come back to this subject on any clause that the noble Lord likes, to give him ample time—if anybody thinks that these are debating points raised at short notice—to consider this point and to come back and explain to the Committee how he really thinks that in an industry, in an occupation with the sort of characteristics that I have been trying to drive home to Members on the Government Benches, any serious regulation of entry can be made effective without the trade unions being properly brought in.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has very properly said, and I appreciate it, that he is prepared to give us further time to think of this point. I very much welcome that; he knows the pressures we are under. But I think the noble Lord has missed the essential point. I have never said that the trade unions should have no part in this; I have never said it should be a matter entirely for the employers. What I am saying is that it should not be a matter entirely for the workers. A pre-entry closed shop can be fixed at a very arbitrary figure indeed, and one of the troubles in this field is simply that it can be an extremely restrictive practice. The arbitrary figure may be fixed and a man may be refused a job because that arbitrary figure has been reached, and yet employers may be crying out for employees in that industry. That cannot be right.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Can there be a pre-entry closed shop without agreement between the employers and the trade unions? In that case do they not normally have machinery for referring contested cases to a tribunal? I think the noble Lord is putting an imaginary, theoretical case, unrelated to the practical application of the closed shop as it exists to-day.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I do not think that is true. I think there are plenty of cases where the practicalities, as noble Lords on this side are so fond of putting it, show that that is exactly what happens. I had the privilege recently of taking part in a series of lectures at the Royal College of Art. The first person to speak in that series was a trade union leader who talked about the general iniquities of capitalism in its relation to art, and he got on fine with the students until one asked why his trade union was not letting any of their graduates have a work ticket for two years; and if they did not have a union ticket they could not get a job. That is an actual example of how a pre-entry closed shop can be used arbitrarily and wrongly. I quite agree that there is everything to be said for making. Equity and the Seamen's Union work and if noble Lords on this side produce the right kind of Amendments for dealing with that they will find myself and my

593
friends supporting them. But it is useless to say the pre-entry closed shop has not caused great anomalies and hardship and individual injustice in the past and in the present.
LORD SHACKLETON: I must say to the noble Lord that I am now very depressed about the progress of this Bill. Noble Lords on that side may cheer and noble Lords on this side cheer in support. but I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and indeed to the noble Lord who has just spoken: that anyone who has had practical dealings in industry—and there are some noble Lords on this side and on that side—knows that what we are saying is relevant to the realities of the situation. Even if we now proceed further on this clause and let it go through, I am filled with gloom in relation to the future prospects of order and good relations in industry unless the Government will move on this.
I would appeal to the noble Lord, who is a reasonable man, like most noble Lords on the Front Bench, to see that
we are not—and I say this with absolute seriousness—making debating points on this matter. This is a subject of crucial importance for effective relationships in industry. It may well be that we can meet and discuss it, but there is much alarm, and we shall be driven into an impossible position in relation to the progress of this Bill unless we can get some answers to the questions that we put from this side of the House. I will not press the noble Lord, who has been very courteous and has done his best, but we are wholly unconvinced that the Government understand the points we are making.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Would not 'the progress of this Bill be greatly accelerated if certain noble Lords on the Opposition Benches would refrain from making Second Reading speeches on every Amendment?
10.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6. as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mills, V.

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Aldenham, L.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fortescue, E.

Poole, L.

Barnby, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Just, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harcourt, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hatherton, L.

Sandford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Chesham, L.

Hives, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hood, V.

Selsdon, L.

Conesford, L.

Inchyra, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sinclair of Cleve, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Stamp, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Digby, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Templemore, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Thomas, L.

Dulverton, L.

Margadale, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundonald, E.

Maugham, V.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Effingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Beswick, L.

Brown, L.

Ardwick, L.

Birk, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Bernstein, L.

Brockway, L.

Champion, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lindgren, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Shackleton, L.

Diamond, L.

Longford, E.

Shepherd, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stow Hill, L.

George-Brown, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Hoy, L.

Platt, L.

White, Bs.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 6, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 7 [Appropriate contributions to trade union in lieu of membership]:
11.5 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 6, line 5, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
("(2) Appropriate contributions to the trade union in lieu of membership shall be regular payments only in accordance with the rules of the trade union.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment. It may seem rather a drastic one, because in it we are proposing to leave out subsections (2) to (7) inclusive. So far as subsection (7) is concerned we are in agreement with the Government, who have themselves at a later stage an Amendment to delete this part of this clause. We think it would be much more satisfactory, and also infinitely simpler, if, in relation to the payment of contributions which are to be made in lieu of trade union membership, one said that they should be
"regular payments…in accordance with the rules of the trade union" and left it at that.
Our reasons for this are that the whole object of this exercise is to eliminate the "free rider", the person who is prepared to accept all the benefits of collective bargaining but to make no contributions towards them. If these payments are therefore to compensate the unions for the provisions in the rest of the Bill, and are to be contributions towards their funds, then it seems to us to be much simpler to say quite straightforwardly, "All right; it is for the benefit of the union or unions concerned, and therefore, provided that one can be satisfied that any payments to be made are in accordance with the normal rules of the union and that there is no discrimination against this particular group of persons, that should be sufficient". The
596
Government have gone into considerable detail in the rest of this clause, much of which seems to us to be quite unnecessary, and we do not feel that we need to have all this red tape concerning these payments in lieu of union membership.
At this hour of the night I do not propose to go any further into this matter. I should like to know that the Government can accept what we think is a much more satisfactory and straightforward proposition. If these payments are to be made to the unions in lieu of normal membership dues, then surely all that is necessary is to be satisfied that they are in accord with the normal rules of the union or unions concerned. The object of the exercise is to eliminate, in the pecuniary sense at any rate, the "free rider". We do not think this is adequate at all, because, as we explained on an earlier occasion, union membership is very much more than just paying your dues. But if the Government are satisfied to deal with it on this level only, then we fail to see why they should not be equally satisfied with payments in accordance with the normal union rules. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Baroness has explained, this Amendment would delete the subsections in the clause which define the meaning of "appropriate contributions" and regulate their assessment and payment. The Amendment would substitute a new subsection giving the agency union a complete discretion as to the amount an individual who did not wish to join the union should pay in lieu of membership. The Amendment would consequently remove all the safeguards which the subsections in the clause as drafted provide for the protection of nonunion members who are employed under an agency shop agreement. The provisions in Clause 7 allow for an appropriate contribution in lieu of membership to be no less than the union membership subscription excluding optional payments. Furthermore, an initial payment may also be demanded where it would be required

597
of a worker joining the union. The provisions therefore afford reasonable protection of the union interests.
The proposed Amendment removes subsections (2) to (7), and replaces them with a provision to allow the union to determine the level of appropriate contributions payable by non-members and, as the noble Baroness has explained, this would he free of all restrictions. The proposed Amendment therefore would have the effect of allowing a union to frame rules to discriminate against the non-member in an unreasonable and unacceptable way. Rules could be devised which would effectively take away, or act as a powerful deterrent against, an individual's right to choose not to belong to a union. For example, a non-member in an agency shop might, under union rules, be required to pay perhaps as much as double the usual membership subscription for as long as he chose not to be a member of the union. He would have no right of appeal against that level of contribution, nor the right to contribute to a charity instead of a union if unable to establish grounds of conscience.
All these matters would be left to the union to decide in accordance with its rules. I should like to say that there is no more reason to believe that all unions will always, in every case, act as admirably and moderately as one would hope to be the normal pattern of behaviour, than there is in the case of employers. But this Bill attempts to set standards; therefore we consider it is better to spell out these contributions relating to the level of contributions in subsection (2) and (6). As the noble Baroness said, we will be able to agree to delete subsection (7) at a later stage, and there is a Government Amendment down to that effect. There are some special reasons for this which I can explain at that time.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry that in replying to the points I put, the noble Lord failed to make any reference to Clause 9. His colleagues have not hesitated to refer to clauses not yet reached. Clause 9(1)(c) says in relation to contributions that if they are:
"such as to represent an arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination by the trade union against him, or against him and other persons who have elected to pay contributions in lieu of membership of the trade union"
598
there is a provision for an appeal, as I understand it, to an industrial tribunal. If the only objection to this Amendment is, in effect, a drafting one—admittedly a serious one—in that it was not made absolutely clear that it should be the normal rules of the union which would apply, and that they would not be in any way discriminatory against those not in full membership, we should be glad to take the Amendment back and redraft it. We do not wish to suggest some extraordinary rate of contribution should be settled for the non-member as opposed to a normal member. That was not the intention of the Amendment. We are willing to look at the drafting again, but with that possible concession on our part, plus the provisions in Clause 9, I do not feel that the arguments against the proposal that we put forward hold water.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I can reply quite briefly. It may not have been the intention of the noble Baroness to put down an Amendment that unions should be encouraged to set an unreasonably high level, but it would make that possible. We do not anticipate that this will be a common pattern, but there is a need to write in safeguards to cover residual situations. The point made about Clause (9)(1)(c), which we shall deal with later, does not really meet this situation if the level of subscriptions is in the union rules. That is why I dealt with the point of the union rules. The rules of a registered union have to be submitted to the Registrar. If, in order to encourage people into the union they decide that people must pay a bit more, even if it was twice as high as the usual level, the Registrar would not feel able to strike it out. If it was in the rule hook, that would be the amount that would go into the agency agreement and could be asked of the nonunion member.
I do not think that the noble Baroness has really added anything of substance to what she said in moving the Amendment; and my reply in substance is the same. I do not think there is a great deal between us. We are spelling out what in practice will happen for 90 per cent. of the time. The noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, might be able to tell us something about this. The appropriate payment for the non-unionist will be the

599
same as that required from a union member, less the optional element such as the political levy and one or two things of that sort. The effect may be the same. We feel that these safeguards should be included in the Bill.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I feel like passing the remark, "Oh what a tangled web we weave"—but I do not want to go on with that quotation because I do not want to make any unpleasant implications. First of all, I cannot conceive of a rule book having differential contributions. It sets out what are the contributions for the members of the union, but it is only one set contribution. I can see them opting out of these cash benefits and things of that kind but it might surprise your Lordships when I say that a person who does not want to be a member of a union should not have the advantages which are due to the members of the union; and it is the case that at the moment in my own organisation that the cost of running it is subsidised by investment income. Our investment income is running at around £500,000 a year, so we are in the red on our contributions. I would argue that if a person comes along and wants to have a special arrangement and is prepared to pay a special contribution but does not want to be a proper union member, it is fair to ask the question: should he be allowed to enjoy the subsidy that the proper union members get out of the savings? In practice, we should not discriminate in this way but it is rather a novel arrangement to take note of—he would be enjoying a privilege even though he did not want it if he pays only the ordinary contribution, less anything there may be in relation to cash benefits which presumably he would not want to take up.
BARONESS WHITE: I still think that we have made a reasonable case and that our proposal would be very much simpler, with the one proviso that I have made, but I do not propose at this hour of the night to continue with or to press this argument. There are other matters under the next Amendment which we would wish to have probed and clarified, and in order to enable us to proceed to those I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.19 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 6, line 17, after ("exceed") insert ("nor shall they be less than").
The noble Baroness said: I think that there was a slip of the tongue on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he said that they should not pay less, because that it not what the clause states. It says that the payments made
"shall not in the aggregate exceed the aggregate amount by which he"—
the worker—
"would be required to pay for that year by way of periodical contributions in respect of membership if he were a member of the trade union…."
Right through this clause there are various safeguards for the individual. We want to be certain that though the union may not get everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, referred to by way of balancing up of benefits received by members through past savings and so on, at least they should not get less than the aggregate amount. We think that this should be spelled out and that there is an obligation to pay at least as much; and that this sensitivity to the rights of the individual should extend also to the rights of the union. I should also like to ask some questions about how the Government propose that some of these arrangements should work. How is this aggregate amount to be computed? There are, for example, occasions when, for particular purposes, a union will declare a special levy over and above the weekly, monthly or quarterly contribution. Is the nonunion member to be included in an obligation to pay this special levy, or can he opt out of that? Is this going to be a matter of any dubiety, or may we be quite sure that he is going to be involved in this way; that at least he pays any normal additional payment agreed on democratically by the union according to its rules.
With great respect to my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, there are unions in which there are a number of classes of membership, and though for each particular class there is a standard contribution there is a great variety of classes. Who is to decide into which class of membership the non-member is to go? If the union has no jurisdiction over him I see possible difficulties arising

601
about a decision regarding the class in which it would be appropriate for a non-union member to be included. This could lead to great practical difficulties. It may not seem a very important point, but it is exactly this kind of thing which can lead to endless friction and dispute on the shop floor. Therefore I think we are entitled to have some further information about how the Government propose that this shall work.
We cannot see why, in subsection (5)—again we are concerned with the aggregate contribution—there is to be what, at any rate on our reading, seems to indicate a tax holiday of a month for the worker concerned. There is a three-month period in the first part of the clause and one month later on. Does this mean a tax holiday? Does this mean that for the first month of employment in an agency shop he does not have to pay his dues or it is not to be computed within the aggregate? He may not necessarily pay in the first month, but is it to be included in, or excluded from, the aggregate? I think we ought to know that.
The provision for people who are not likely to stay even one month in any particular work has obviously been brought to the attention of the Government and they realise that this goes wider than the construction industry to which at first they were confining this provision. I do not think that we are quarrelling with them on that, but on all these other matters we should like to know how far the Government have thought out the practical points that will arise; and if we are legislating for people all over the country, millions of people, it is our duty in the Legislature to make as clear as possible just what we mean by a clause of this kind which seeks to set out very detailed conditions for payments, which are bound to be sensitive payments for reasons which we discussed earlier in the debate.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: There are a couple of questions I should like to elucidate. The object of Clause 10 is to make strike action—to safeguard a pre-entry closed shop, for instance—an unfair practice. The pre-entry closed shop is one where applicants for a job must already possess the appropriate trade union membership.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If I may interrupt, could the noble Lord tell me on what clause he is speaking?
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: Are we not dealing with Amendment No. 59? I will come to it, but I want people to know what we are talking about because I guarantee that there is hardly a Member on the other side of the House who can define a pre-entry closed shop.
LORD WINDLESHAM: But we are not talking about the pre-entry closed shop. We have moved on from Clause 6, which deals with the pre-entry closed shop. We are now on Clause 7, which does not concern the pre-entry closed shop; it concerns the agency shop and the payments which are made in lieu of union subscriptions. The pre-entry closed shop does not arise.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: No, but the agency shop has a purpose—to get rid of the pre-entry. That is exactly the point. Now suppose I am coming into the factory on one of these mysterious new systems of trade unionism. I am working on a machine with a fully paid up trade union member, and I am one of these esoteric individuals under the wing of this marvellous legal framework that is made by this new Conservative Poujadist Party. Am I to have the same Safeguards for industrial injuries for this payment? In fact, the matter has never been worked out. Once all this is established, nobody knows what rights this poor creature, who is in the twilight between the heaven and hell of modern existence and is not a member of the union, has compared with those of a full trade union member, so far as his industrial injuries, access to compensation payments, and so on, are concerned. I really think it is a point that concerns this clause, but I do not want to weary the House. I have made my case and I think it is clear enough.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Perhaps the noble Lord can help me when he answers the other questions. I hope I am on the right Amendment with the questions I want to ask. Who will collect the contributions for charity? Who will be responsible for the payments to charity? If a man fails to pay his union dues and is in default, as we know from what we have heard here the union will know

603
what to do with him. I cannot find anything in the Bill dealing with the mechanics of collection and the payments of conscientious objectors. How will they deal with their money? It would seem common sense to me for the employers to be responsible for dealing with this matter. It does not appear to be written in the Bill.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If I may deal with that last point first, may I say that the noble Lord is perhaps on the wrong clause. Clause 8 deals with contributions to charity, and I could answer him on that clause. We are discussing Clause 7. May I move backwards through the points raised? The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, arrived finally, by way of a somewhat circuitous introduction, I must say, at a point which I think was perfectly valid and which does arise on this clause. He said there would be widespread confusion as to the nature of the benefits the non-unionist would receive that the union man would be quite clear what benefits he was entitled to receive but there would be doubt about the position of the non-unionist. This is something we must try to make quite clear, because there is no need for doubt, and these matters will be clearly spelled out in the agency shop agreement. What the non-member will be obtaining for his payment in lieu of membership is solely the benefit of collective bargaining as regards his wages and terms of service. All the other benefits of union membership, of which the noble Lord gave some examples and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, gave some others when he spoke earlier, will not apply to the non-unionist because he is not a member of the union. He has made a payment in lieu, and this is the conception of the union negotiators acting in an agency capacity.
I come to a point of central importance. We think that where non-unionists are paying this amount of money but do not have the benefits, that will be an incentive to joining the union. They may come to see some of the benefits of union organisation which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. has described. He told us how important it is that people should not just contribute the money but should participate in union activities. So here is an incentive.
604
The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked how, if there were differential rates in union agreements, the appropriate rate for non-unionists would be selected. This will be done by agreement between the employer, the individual and the union when the agency shop agreement is drawn up. The amount will be specified in the agreement. And there is the disputes procedure for settling it, if there are arguments about it. The noble Baroness also asked, would there be a "tax holiday" for a month? I would not myself use that word. This is jumping a little ahead, but since the noble Baroness said that these were probing Amendments, perhaps it would be in order for me to move on to subsection (5). The position there is that a man already in employment when the agency shop agreement is signed would have up to three months to decide whether or not he wishes to make a payment to the union in lieu of membership, or to contribute to a charity on grounds of conscience, or to join the union. He has to decide on which of these three courses of action he is going to choose. If a man is joining from outside, the period is one month. No payment is due in that period of one or three months; the payment becomes due after the expiry of that period.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I just want to express our thanks for one of the loveliest little answers we have had all day.
LORD WINDLESHAM: With that, I think I ought to sit down.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Lord does sit down, may I ask him a question which I should have asked earlier? Can he clear up what appears to be a discrepancy between what he has told us and what his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn told us earlier? It refers to the last phrase in subsection (3), where it says:
…excluding any such contribution which (subject to his giving any requisite notice) he would not be obliged to pay."
On first reading, I had supposed that that would cover the political levy, but when we asked the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about this, he said that the money could be used for political purposes. And he intervened later to assure us that it could be used for political purposes. I was surprised at his answer,

605
but as it was given and is on the record I think we ought to know where we stand on this point. We were asking whether these payments could be used by the union for any purpose whatever and suggested that the education of non-unionists might be an appropriate use for them. This matter ought to be made clear, because there is some contradiction.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think it will depend on the rules of the individual union. I confess that my impression on first reading was the same as that of the noble Baroness. The last words I understand to be the optional elements of the union due, which excludes the political levy; but the purposes to which a union may put its money is a technical point and one which has been before the courts on a number of occasions. I was not present when this subject was discussed with my noble friend.
BARONESS WHITE: I do not see how it could have been before the courts in this form, because we have never had such rules before. There has been contributions to charity on a voluntary basis, but we have never had legislation of this kind up to now, thank heaven! and therefore this particular situation could not have come before the courts.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Baroness misunderstood me. The point I was making was that the use to which trade unions can put the money which they have drawn from their members is subject to a certain amount of case law: not under the agency shop agreement, because the noble Baroness is quite right in what she says; money coming from the non-unionist is a new concept, and therefore that has not been before the court. I was saying that I was not present when this was discussed with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and I think that he and I ought to get together and sort it out.
BARONESS WHITE: That is a very good idea.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but earlier on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor laid it down, to my great surprise, that payment by a non-member to a union automatically determined the appropriation by that union to union purposes and excluded political purposes. I was not in the Chamber at the time, but I gather
606
that we have had the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, saying with full authority on behalf of the Government quite the opposite. I do not think it is a very satisfactory position for a third Minister to come along and say that, whereas the Lord Chancellor has said one thing, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said the opposite, he thinks it is something that they ought to look into. We should not have three different views on what is an important matter. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, who apparently was not aware of these previous exchanges, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke a considerable period after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, after this very matter had been raised, and after there would have been full opportunity in the normal circumstances for consideration and consultation with those who advise the Government on these matters.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I say that I was here when my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, made the remark, and my recollection is entirely different from that of the noble Baroness. I thought that my noble friend said precisely that it was not available for political purposes.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: With respect, I think the noble Earl heard the first observation from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but there was a second observation later. I think possibly it was the first observation that the noble Earl heard.
EARL JELLICOE: If I could intervene for a moment, I heard both the first and second observations of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I think noble Lords opposite may have a point here. What I would suggest is that we should look at Hansard to-morrow. We are all speaking from memory after a fairly long day's debating, and if there are points to be cleared up we can clear them up in our debate. I think this would he the most sensible way to proceed, rather than to exchange reminiscences and recollections which may be imperfectly remembered.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure we should be very happy to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I have no doubt at all in my mind as to the second intervention, because I have an interest to declare. I am a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party, and I was delighted

607
to learn that this money could be devoted to political purposes if it was so desired. I think it would be much better if we left this point at the moment. Again, I do not wish to press this Amendment. It was, to some extent, a probing Amendment. I think we have aired and, to some extent at any rate, clarified some of the points which have been worrying us. I think it is an essential part of our obligations in this Committee so to do, because, as I said earlier, these matters come very close to the individual on the shop floor. I make no apology for raising matters of detail of this kind, because it is essential that members of a union should be aware of these things. It is not only the national officers who are represented in your Lordships' House who should know, but people at all levels should be aware of exactly what is expected of them and what the conditions are. Having aired the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("( )Every agency shop agreement shall provide for authorised representatives of trade unions or independent organisations of workers to whom it applies to be provided with, by the employer at intervals of not more than three months, lists of names, numbers and descriptions of workers who are liable for payments of contributions in lieu of trade union membership subscriptions, and every such agreement shall make provision for the method of payment by the employer to the trade union or independent organisation of workers of such contributions in lieu of trade union contributions such payments to be made at intervals not longer than two weeks.
( ) Every agency shop agreement shall provide that the employer shall be responsible for transferring to the union or independent organisation of workers, at not less than the stated interval, such sums as may be due in respect of appropriate contributions in lieu of membership. and facilities shall be afforded to authorised representatives of the trade unions or independent organisations of workers to scrutinise an account which the employer shall make of such payments whenever such representatives deem it appropriate to do so.")
The noble Lord said: This is one of those admirable Amendments which is indeed almost a speech in itself, and it is so full that I think it needs very little explanation and, I trust noble Lords opposite will agree, very little justification. As the clause stands there is considerable room for legitimate uncertainty about the
608
machinery for the transfer to the trade union of any sums of money which may accrue from the payments made or due to be made by non-members. The purpose of this Amendment, long though it is, is the simple one of ensuring that there is an obligation placed on the employer to provide periodic information about the numbers and locations of nonmembers who are liable for contributions, and to be responsible for the transfer to the union of the appropriate sums. I think that noble Lords will agree that this is probably the most satisfactory arrangement. Clearly, to expect a union collector to go and collect from a non-member would seem to provide a regular possibility of friction which there is no point in creating if it can be avoided. I trust that this Amendment, in the few words in which I have commended it, will find acceptance by the Committee.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I was a little slow in rising to my feet because I thought some noble Lords opposite might wish to add further arguments. Under an agency shop agreement which is defined, as noble Lords know, in Clause 10, an employer agrees that, in respect of workers of one or more description, the terms and conditions of employment shall include a condition that each worker must either be or become a member of the agency union or pay an appropriate contribution to the union. The onus to belong to the union, or to pay the contribution instead, is therefore upon the worker. If the worker fails to observe this condition of employment he may be dismissed or otherwise penalised by his employer. The union may induce the employer to dismiss or penalise him, and such action on the union's part would not be an unfair industrial practice. Therefore the rights of the union in the agency shop situation are adequately enforced, and this provision is greatly to the advantage of the trade unions.
As a matter of practice, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a union making an agreement with the employer under which the employer would furnish information about non-members, nor is there anything to prevent a non-member authorising his employer to deduct the appropriate contributions from his wages and pay to the union. The union should already know who are the contributing non-members, and the union will be encouraged to keep

609
its own records, based on whatever sources of information seem most appropriate. We are all anxious to simplify the provisions of this Bill and avoid introducing complicated and unnecessary Amendments. This is almost completely the reverse of the first Amendment in this group, No. 58, tabled by noble Lords opposite, who argue that what is already in the Bill is perhaps too detailed. I explained that we felt that a safeguard was needed, and did not feel it could be taken out on that particular occasion.
Let me repeat, there is nothing to prevent employers making such voluntary agreements with their agency shop unions.. But if the provisions in the Amendment are given statutory force, and made mandatory on the employer, we see considerable difficulties as regards enforcement. The Government believe that this may best be dealt with by voluntary agreement. In the light of what has been said, I should be surprised if the Opposition felt inclined to press this.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I must warmly congratulate the noble Lord on having succeeded in keeping a straight face while he made that speech. When he says that the Government do not want to introduce unnecessary complications and unnecessary detail into this Bill, and that they believe that these matters are best left to voluntary agreement, the noble Lord is touching points of high comedy. This answer, with the greatest respect, will not do, or begin to do. As we have made clear, we do not like the agency shop agreement; we do not like the agency shop concept. If we are going to have that concept it is necessary to have some more precise way in which it is to be put into operation. Noble Lords opposite should take this matter back for further consideration. They are saying that it should be left to some arrangement to be applied by an employer, who perhaps does not like the arrangement, and the trade union, who does not like the arrangement, to deal with the financial obligations of what may be scattered men in a fairly sizeable factory.
I modestly suggested, and did not elaborate it because it was so obvious that it did not need elaboration, that it would be hardly suitable for the normal trade
610
union collector to go round and collect this money. If we are going to have an arrangement of this sort it should be a business-like one. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will look at this matter again. If there is no obligation of this sort put in the Bill I can see endless difficulties arising. Perhaps one could put this in the Bill and say that alternative agreed arrangements could be made. Think, for example, of the nonmember who falls into arrears with the payments which he is due to make. Is he expected to pay absolutely punctually, weekly or monthly, according to the way the trade union contribution is defined? If he falls in arrears by one week, or month, is the union entitled to go to the employer and say, "This man must be dismissed"? That, presumably, would be the entitlement of the union under the law as it would stand. Yet I am sure that if the union did that noble Lords opposite would at once be saying, "What harshness! What standing on a technicality to try and persecute this non-unionist in this way!"
How many weeks or months is he allowed to get into arrears? How do you deal with the problem which exists so widely even in the trade union movement itself, especially where workers are moving about, of a man who falls into arrears, and finds the arrears have amounted to a sum that makes it quite difficult for him to pay in a normal week? Endless problems and petty difficulties are going to arise. Frankly, I do not think that this is a very sensible arrangement at all. But if we are going to have imposed upon a substantial part of industry this artificial arrangement—and we shall have more to say about it when me come, ultimately, to the clause that actually sets it up and defines it—do let us write into the Bill some sensible arrangement about the collection of this wretched money.
Already in a large number of concerns, of course, there are arrangements for union contributions to be deducted from the pay of union members and paid direct to the union. I should have thought it breached no principle, and was the wisest way of dealing with what can otherwise be a very tricky subject; to have it dealt with, at any rate by Statute, in the way a we suggest, even though I am sure my noble friends would not resist it if the

611
Government suggested that, while something along these lines should go in the Statute, there should also be provision that the trade union and employer in a particular case may agree on alternative arrangements. But I do hope that noble Lords opposite will look at this matter again.
11.52 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is important. We were told at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill that the object was to improve industrial relations. My noble friends who moved this Amendment from the Front Bench really have a point here of paramount importance. The first question we should ask is this: what is an agency shop? Only a registered union can establish an agency shop; but, as we shall find later in the Bill, before an agency shop can be establishted there are many detailed hurdles to climb and get over, which I will not describe at this moment because we shall reach them at the famous Clause 10. Those hurdles have to be jumped over and they will cause all sorts of discussion. They could very well cause a little bitterness—I am modifying my language—in industrial relations.
As my noble friends on the Front Bench have said, it is essential for men working at the bench, or in the factory, or in the plant, to know who is who and what is what in modem industry. If it is said that this is tautological or long, and that a voluntary method could be obtained here, we might answer back quite logically: "If you think a voluntary effort can be put at this important point in the Bill, why could we not have the entire trade union movement on a voluntary basis, too?" But the Government have decided against that. Here I am going to finish. I assure noble Lords opposite that I see no harm at all in writing into the Bill, if they hope it will become an Act, that these collections and these dues should be known to those persons in the registered union as and when it is convenient, and as and when it is legitimate for them so to do. It would make for a better atmosphere on the shop floor, a better atmosphere in the plant, and better industrial relations. And if the Government think this is not the appropriate language, well, with their skill
612
and Parliamentary draftsman it will take only the snap of a dragon's foot to get the right language. Please, tonight, I think this is worth taking back. We had a lovely answer on part of my question before. I hope the noble Lord will say, "All right, the Government are prepared to have a look at this matter and bring it back to you for consideration."
VISCOUNT AMORY: This is the kind of practical point which it is very right should be brought up in the Committee stage. I know how important it is for good relations that things should be done in the way people on the shop floor think is best. I see the point which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has made that the trade union collector might find it awkward to go to non-members and collect the money. I also see that perhaps some of those individuals concerned may, on their side, feel it would be awkward to have their money collected by the union collector when they do not want to be members of the union. So this is a practical point, and I would feel that in one way or another it ought to be met.
Maybe the answer is that an agreed arrangement should be worked into each particular agency agreement—I do not know whether that would be the way of doing it or not. But I think it is a practical point we are up against, and that we ought to bear it in mind, at any rate, when we come to consider the agency agreement, in order to be satisfied that it is likely to work. Sometimes these little things can be very important indeed, but I think it might be a little top-heavy to include this in the clause.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to take my theme from what was said by my noble friend Lord Amory, who has had very considerable experience of industry. I do not think it would be right, or that noble Lords opposite would expect me, to say that we could accept this form of words. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, even suggested that. These doubts have been advanced, but we hope that in practice these difficulties will not arise and that voluntary agreement could be reached. However, in the light of what has been said I think it right for me to say that we will look at this again between now and Report.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: In the light of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, which we very much appreciate, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 6, line 44, leave out ("construction").
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I might speak at the same time on Amendment No. 67, which is consequential to Amendment No. 66. Subsection (5) of Clause 7 provides that a worker shall not be required by an agency shop agreement to pay the appropriate contribution in respect of certain periods. The noble Baroness, Lady White, touched on this in debate on an earlier Amendment. In the case of a worker already in employment when an agency shop agreement comes into effect, the period is three months from the date when it takes effect. In the case of an employee being engaged, the period is one month from the commencement of employment.
In the construction industry where a large number of workers are employed for periods of short duration and there is a small permanent labour force which is often supplemented by a large number of transient workers, this would often make the operation of an agency shop agreement impracticable. Subsection (6) therefore enables the Secretary of State to make an order substituting an agreement for short periods and subsection (7) defines "construction work".
Since the Bill was considered in another place, representations have been made to the Government that these problems of short duration of employment and movement of workers between employers are by no means confined to the construction industry. Such conditions occur also in the entertainment industry, in agriculture, seafaring and other industries. It would seem to us reasonable to extend the power of the Secretary of State to enable him to make an order modifying the requirements for the period after which the appropriate contribution becomes pay-
614
able where it would be appropriate for that to be done. The second Amendment would omit subsection (7). I hope that these Amendments will commend themselves to both sides of the Committee. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I do not think we need spend much time on this, but I am delighted that the Government are extending their knowledge of industry. They should know that the construction industry is not the only industry to which this problem applies. This Bill has been through another place, yet now we have to have a Government Amendment to bring the Bill into line with reality. I am glad that at last the Government are waking up to some of the facts of industrial life.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 67.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (7)—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think we have made our general position on this clear; that is, that although we seek to make Amendments and improvements in detail we deeply dislike the scheme of which this clause is an essential part. I think perhaps further argument on the subject would be otiose, but we shall feel bound to divide the Committee on this clause.
LORD GRAY: Before we leave this clause, may I ask my noble friend whether, before the next stage of the Bill, he would look at one small point in subsection (5)? It is whether in fact all categories are covered by the workers who are in the employment when the Bill comes into force and those who are engaged subsequently. There are questions of transfers and people in full-time training. I wonder whether he can tell the Committee whether they all come in?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I would be happy to meet the noble Lord and discuss that point in detail before the next stage of the Bill.
12.2 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Aldenham, L.

Dundonald, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Aldington, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Falkland, V.

Poole, L.

Barrington, V.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fortescue, E.

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Reigate, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glendevon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray, L.

Sandford, L.

Brougham of Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Savile, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chesham, L.

Hives, L.

Selsdon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Cowley, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mansfield, E.

Templemore, L.

Cromartie, E.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Denham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dulverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ardwick, L.

Diamond, L.

Platt, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Beswick, L.

George-Brown, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

White, Bs.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 7, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  DECIMAL COINS
  DECIMAL COINS