Sitting of 6 June 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BATH SIDE BAY DEVELOPMENT BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL AND TRUST PROPERTY DEPTFORD BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

  THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next.

  ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND LIMITED WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  As amended, considered: to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Harrow
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the registered unemployed in the most recent figures available to his Department for the London Borough of Harrow were in the age groups under 25 years of age and over 55 years of age, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): At 10th January, the latest date for which information is available, 22·5 per cent. of those registered as wholly unemployed in the area covered by the Harrow Employment Exchange were under 25 years of age and 36 per cent. were aged 55 years and over.
    Mr. Dykes: While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask, in view of the welcome trend of falling unemployment throughout the country, including the South-East, whether there will be additional measures by the Department's local offices to find employment for people in these two categories in view of the relative difficulties which they experience?
    Mr. Smith:Those under 25 or wholly unemployed were appreciably smaller in number in Harrow in January than in the South-East region and the country as a whole. On the other hand, Harrow's share of unemployment among those aged 55 and over was substantially greater than the regional and national share, largely because of premature retirements in two companies in the area early in 1971. I

    211
    do not think the situation is too serious in Harrow, but of course our local offices give special attention to these two categories.

    Wage Claims
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will institute discussions with a view to ensuring that all major wage claims are brought into effect on the same date each year, thus reducing the incentive for successive claims to leap frog each other and causing additional inflation.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): This is primarily a matter for unions and employers. If the TUC and CBI were to raise this matter in the talks we are having with them we would certainly consider it.
    Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that this could be considered by the Government. If a fixed date could be arranged—of course, on a voluntary basis—it could well make life easier for the trade unions, employers and Government alike, especially if the Office of Manpower Economics were to provide ample figures for them in advance of the fixed date.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am not absolutely convinced that this would necessarily be a change for the better, but if it is raised by the unions and the CBI, the Government would not wish to stand in the way of its consideration.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he said is in direct contradiction to the advice which he has given to the Railways Board? In the railway industry, he is trying to extend the period beyond 1st May. He has asked the Board not to concede the agreement in the period of less than 15 days after the normal date, which has been chosen over the years, for the payment of the increase to the railwaymen—in other words, 1st May. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is now advising the railway industry to go beyond the normal 12-month period.
    Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has the facts wrong. I have not advised the Board to do anything. There is no change in the negotiating year in the railways in the proposals put forward by
    212
    the Board, which were a modification of the original Jarratt award designed to suit the unions.
    Mr. Skinner: While realising that it is a somewhat difficult problem to get the trade unions to put in a claim on the same day, could not the right hon. Gentleman at least make a start by suggesting that the Railways Board should pay the increase on the same day as London Transport? This would at least be a beginning.
    Mr. Macmillan:It would also be helpful if the unions would accept the same percentage of annual increase as in respect of London Transport—in other words, under 12½ per cent.

    Unemployed Persons (Near Retirement)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the latest analysed monthly figures of unemployed persons are persons within five years of the retirement age; and how their average period of unemployment compares with other age groups.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Robert Chichester-Clark): At 10th January, the latest date for which information is available, 14·6 per cent. of all males and females registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain were within five years of retirement ages. Their median duration of unemployment was between 26 and 39 weeks, compared with 9–13 weeks for all registered unemployed.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he agree that, however many people are unemployed from one month to the next, the nature and causes of unemployment are for ever changing and that this is a particular problem for older people? Is he satisfied that the Department is doing enough research to find out whether there are any short-term solutions which can be found to particular problems in these age categories?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am never satisfied that enough research is done on any of these subjects. At the same time, it is a fact that there is no disqualification on age grounds for people in this category which would prevent them from

    213
    going to Government training centres or taking advantage of any other Government training facilities, including the IRU.

    Hotel and Catering Industry
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that vacancies in the hotel and catering industry are filled; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Following consultations with the British Hotels and Restaurants Association improvements are being made in the arrangements for bringing vacancies to the notice of those who are unemployed and suitable for such work. When these improvements are completed, over 20 employment offices will have specialist sections dealing with skilled hotel and catering occupations.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for that most encouraging answer. Nevertheless, is he aware that on 9th May his Department told me in a Written Answer that there were over 16,000 job vacancies in the industry, while at about the same time the British Hotel and Restaurants Association stated that there were over 98,000 vacancies? Does this not show the great need in this industry for recruitment to overcome the job snob attitudes of people towards work in it? Will he continue as he has started today by doing all he can to stress that the industry can offer secure employment to a very large number of people?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure my hon. Friend is right. We are doing all we can to encourage both the trade and others to view this in a rather different light and to get more people to enter the industry. But we must be honest and admit that many people do not find this work particularly attractive. A leading hotelier told me so last week. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend says, there are great opportunities and there is very good security of employment in the industry.
    Mr. Dalyell: When they go around, could these same officers of the Department ask about the implementation of the fire regulations? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the South of
    214
    Scotland fire services are acutely worried about the number of hotels which have failed to register? This is a problem.
    Mr. Smith: That is rather wide of the original Question and is not my responsibility. But I share the concern of the hon. Gentleman and I will draw what he said to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

    North Sea Gas and Oil
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made of the number of jobs in Great Britain likely to be created as a result of the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil within the next five years.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs he estimates will arise in Great Britain over the next five years from the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: While it is not possible to make a precise estimate, activities connected with the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil are likely to provide a substantial and increasing number of jobs.
    Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend has not given a particularly illuminating answer. The number of rigs to be employed in the North Sea area in 1973 or 1974 is likely to be three times the number there now. Would it not be a good idea to have a complete computer analysis of the repercussions of this new industry upon tertiary and secondary industries in this area? Would not my hon. Friend agree that by proper planning methods many more jobs could become available?
    Mr. Smith: I should like to study what my hon. Friend said. Undoubtedly, if the various projects of which my Department is aware materialise, they are likely to provide over 4,000 additional jobs and to produce great opportunities. But it would be wrong to over-sell the developments taking place. On the other hand, these can be of real benefit, particularly to an area such as Scotland.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the successful working of gas and oil reserves could bring about a large-scale advantage to this country's economy? However difficult it may be,

    215
    can he give any idea of how many jobs this will bring to Scotland? It would help us to halt the depopulation there.
    Mr. Smith: I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomes this development. It is very difficult to be precise. I quoted the figure of over 4,000 jobs and I hope there will be many more. It could well be so, but much more detailed study is required over a period before we can approach this matter with any precision.
    Dame Irene Ward:While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply and recognising all the efforts which are being made, may I ask him to bear in mind that we have very high levels of unemployment and that everything seems a bit too "scatty"? The situation needs to be stated with much more precision so that we can know in which directions to bring pressure to bear on Ministers to get on with the jobs with which we want them to get on. I am very annoyed with all this "scattiness".
    Mr. Smith: It is always very difficult to please my hon. Friend because she is so assiduous in promoting the cause of the North East, but I assure her that there is a great deal of precision in my Department's approach to employment. Indeed, the improvements which have already taken place are good evidence of the precision being applied.
    Dr. Miller: When will the Government stop calling this "North Sea gas and oil", because these deposits go right round the North Sea to the west coast of Scotland, stretching into the Irish Sea? When also will the Government come to a conclusion about the benefit which these developments should have on Scotland and stop anybody—and I do not care from where they come—from stealing this valuable asset from the Scottish people?
    Mr. Smith: I do not think that I should start crossing swords with the hon. Gentleman about the merits of Scotland. I did not coin the phrase "North Sea oil and gas". It is in general use. Indeed, he should address his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome this development because, not only for Scotland but for the country as a whole, there are very real benefits from it.

    Industrial Relations Act (Training of Union Officials)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department is able to give to trades unions wishing to train union officials and members in the operation of the Industrial Relations Act.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in the discharge of his responsibilities for promoting good industrial relations, he will arrange for his Department to make available training facilities for union officials.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: A course for shop stewards and union officials is available under my Department's "training within industry" scheme.
    Mr. Rost:Is there not an urgent need for more courses for trade unionists on the workings of the Industrial Relations Act? Would this not help to improve industrial relations and to make it clear that the Act works to the advantage of trade union members and to the public interest as a whole? Would it not also be useful if some hon. Members opposite could attend some of these courses and therefore give less misleading advice to their trade union colleagues?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark:As my hon. Friend says, there are a number of courses which hon. Members opposite could most usefully attend. A number of courses of the type which my hon. Friend has in mind are available, and they are worked out with the full knowledge and approval of the unions concerned. Union approval is always secured before a course is presented. A revised course is being prepared at present in consultation with the Commission on Industrial Relations, the major unions concerned and the industrial training boards. The initial courses for shop stewards were well received but the unions are increasingly making their own arrangements.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that the architect of the Act was the Solicitor-General, who used all his ingenuity to frame a loaded question which was, nevertheless, rejected by a majority of six to one in the ballot during the rail dispute, and is it not clear, therefore, that the union leaders know their men

    217
    and the Act better than the Government do?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: The architect was not the Solicitor-General but the court, but in any case it is true to say that these facilities for trade unions have been available for about 10 years and that quite a number of shop stewards and union officials have taken advantage of them. It seems to me a great pity that many more did not do so. I suppose that one could say that that shows a lack of responsibility by some of those concerned in not having taken advantage of the opportunities which were offered.
    Mr. Jessel:Will my hon. Friend see what can be done particularly to encourage shop stewards to take the courses to which he has referred, and can he give any indication how many shop stewards have already taken such courses?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Of course we shall give every possible support to this. In the last 10 years 700 shop stewards have taken the union job relations courses and nearly 50 union officials have been trained to present the course.
    Mr. Heffer: Have the hon. Gentleman or his Department approached the TUC to ask whether it might perhaps organise some courses on industrial relations which Ministers and some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite could attend?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have no doubt that there would be great advantage in cross-fertilisation, and I am sure that note will be taken of what the hon. Member said.

    Rail Dispute
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the railway workers' dispute.
    Mr. Adam Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the position in the current rail dispute; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan:Representatives of the British Railways Board and the three railway unions met this morning and agreed to adjourn to a further meeting at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.
    Sir G. Nabarro:May we expect a statement tomorrow from the Minister after the conclusion of those deliberations? Is he not aware that there is very great anxiety in all parts of the country, not only within the ambit of the railway dispute itself but also over the whole general range of industry, whether we are not being deadlocked and bogged down by the tendentious conditions of the Industrial Relations Act?
    Mr. Macmillan: I think there is danger—and the whole House will see it—of being bogged down by the refusal of the unions to adopt any form of compromise, and it has been manifest through the whole process of these negotiations. The purpose of this meeting is clearly to try to reach some form of settlement. I do not think it would be wise for me to comment—indeed, I cannot: I do not know what transpired—till after we know what takes place at the meeting tomorrow, when we shall know what the situation is.
    Mr. Prentice: Does not the Secretary of State recall that when the Government applied for the rail ballot order the Solicitor-General told the court that he had reason to doubt support among railwaymen for continued industrial action? Now that the decisive result of the ballot has made nonsense of that assertion has not the Secretary of State a duty to the House and to the country to explain what were the reasons why the Government took that line?
    Mr. Macmillan: I had very good and sound reasons for believing that at varying stages of the negotiations a number of railway men and a number of people would have been happy to see a settlement at a reasonable and moderate figure, and I have reason to believe that the whole country regarded the award by Mr. Jarratt as a reasonable and moderate figure. I am only sorry that the railway union leaders did not see this. They have now received the support of a great mass of their membership. I would not for one moment doubt their right to take industrial action, only the wisdom of so doing.
    Mr. Prentice:The Secretary of State must do better than that. He says he has good reasons for believing that the railway men did not support the union leaders. It has now been proved that

    219
    he had no such reasons. Although the Act is phrased in such a way that he does not have to produce evidence to the court for that assertion, does he not realise that he still has a responsibility to this House on a matter as important as this to explain what those reasons were? We are entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know, what they were.
    Mr. Macmillan: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be able to arrange, if they so wish, a debate through the usual channels. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] I will not at this stage be drawn any further into the merits of the dispute which has not yet been settled and which the parties are still discussing.
    Sir G. Nabarro:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You must distinctly have heard me ask whether we may expect a statement tomorrow at the end of the deliberations.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

    Scotland (Lost Jobs)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the number of jobs which have been lost in Scotland since 1st January, 1971.
    Mr. Dudley Smith:The precise information is not available, but between December, 1970, and September, 1971, the latest date for which a provisional estimate is available, the number of employees in employment in Scotland decreased by 26,000.
    Mr. Strang:The Minister must be aware that that figure represents a staggering state of injustice and demoralisation, when there are a large number of additional redundancies which have been recently announced in Scotland. Bearing in mind that many of these are in nationalised industries, does he not think that it would be sensible to impose a freeze on all redundancies in nationalised industries till the problem has been alleviated?
    Mr. Smith: I am as much concerned as is the hon. Member about the high level of unemployment in Scotland, and
    220
    we have always said that it is unacceptable, but I think that it is encouraging that there was a fall of some 16,000 in the May unemployed figure and that that is an indication that our measures are in fact working.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's economic policy for Scotland has as much chance as a snowball in hell of getting unemployment below 100,000 this year or next year? Will he come clean and tell the country the truth that this is in fact the case?
    Mr. Smith: No, I do not accept the hon. Member's pessimism. There is too much talking down in that way on these occasions. We must welcome progress where it is shown. We have certainly made an improvement in Scotland, and there is the further indication of an increase of over one thousand unfilled vacancies in Scotland. This is the right trend, and it shows that we are on the right lines.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Employment what notification he has received of likely redundancies in the steel industry in 1972; in what areas; and what numbers are involved.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the reply comprises a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Eadie:The right hon. Gentleman has me at some disadvantage since I have to wait for that table of figures, but I wonder whether he can assure the House that there is good liaison between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, because he may be aware that, as a consequence of the steel target pronounced by his right hon. Friend, many thousands of jobs in the steel industry will be placed in jeopardy.
    Mr. Macmillan: We are in communication with both the Department of Trade and Industry and the British Steel Corporation with regard to redundancies. The British Steel Corporation's social policy unit co-operates with my Department both at national and at local levels to give all possible assistance to British steel employees facing redundancies.
    Mr. Edward Taylor:Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the improvements which we have seen in the employment situation in Scotland, there is real concern that there has been in nationalised industries, particularly steel, a movement of administrative jobs away from Scotland, despite the provisions of the nationalisation Act that they should be spread around the country? Would he consider meeting the chiefs of the nationalised industries with a view to ensuring that Scotland gets a fair share of administrative jobs?
    Mr. Macmillan:I am not quite sure whether that particular technique is necessary, but it is important to see that administrative jobs are decentralised, and, as far as possible, decentralised fairly, and I am very willing to accept the claims of Scotland in this respect.
    Mr. Ashley:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that closing of the Shotton steel works would mean that Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire would be turned into a distressed area, and will he do all in his power to ensure that those works are kept open?
    Mr. Macmillan:The question of which steel works are kept open is a matter not for me but for the British Steel Corporation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that where there are redundancies my Department does its best to see that those concerned are found employment as soon as possible.
    Following is the information:

    Likely Redundancies in the Steel Industry during 1972

    Region

    Numbers involved

    Wales

    1,745

    Northern

    1,416

    Midlands

    1,048

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    836

    Scotland

    700

    North Western

    159

    Eastern and Southern

    40

    London and South Eastern

    5

    Total

    5,949

    NOTE. The figures quoted are based on notifications received by the DE from firms up to and including 22nd May, 1972.

    Commission on Industrial Relations (Ballot)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Employment who will have access to the names and addresses of workers collected by his Department for the Commission on Industrial Relations for ballot purposes.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I understand from the Commission on Industrial Relations that arrangements are being made to destroy its copies of the lists of names and addresses of railway workers collected for purposes of the recent ballot. The unions and Railways Board have been informed of these arrangements. Lists held by my Departmental officers have already been destroyed.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is it not a fact that these names and addresses were collected by the Minister's Department without a court order from the National Industrial Relations Court, without consulting the unions and without all of the Board of the CIR even knowing about it? Is it not also a fact that this was done to coerce the railway unions? As not all the staff involved in the handling of the recent ballot are covered by the Official Secrets Act, how can the Minister give the guarantee which he has given?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I already answered the hon. Gentleman on this matter on 9th May. As far as the CIR was concerned and the compilation of this list, I would not disagree with its view that it was sensible contingency planning. The compilation of the list of employees is a matter for the management of British Railways. Access during the ballot was confined to members of the CIR staff directly concerned with the ballot arangements, trained staff working under their supervision, and observers from the Railways Board and the unions checking entitlement to vote. Only the CIR staff I have mentioned and 16 Departmental staff engaged in counting votes saw the papers.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the carrying out of this ballot was farcical? Does he know that in my constituency we have a Swinton and also a Wath, that there are plenty of Swintons and Waths throughout the

    223
    country but that no other identifying name or town was attached to the letters, not even the word "Yorkshire?" Is he aware that many ballot papers went astray and that many of my constituents were unable to vote, which made a farce of the whole thing?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: There are bound to be areas of this kind. I have been given information about the case in Swinton.

    Industrial Relations Act (Ballots)
    Mr. John D. Grantasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend the Industrial Relations Act to eliminate the requirement for compulsory ballots to be held.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: No, Sir.
    Mr. Grant: Does the Minister accept that the result of the ballot was not only a resounding vote of confidence by the railway men in their union leadership but also a demonstration of their utter contempt for his bumbling brand of bravado which has bedevilled this dispute throughout? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of that and in view of the waste of time and public money that this ballot involved, that the best contribution he could make to industrial peace would be to shut himself off in a siding somewhere?
    Mr. Macmillan: The ballot fulfilled its purpose in showing clearly that industrial action in this case was not being taken except with the agreement of the majority of the workpeople concerned, who were willing to take industrial action, despite the inconvenience to the country and damage to the economy, to obtain a wage settlement on which they had insisted from the beginning of the negotiations, rather than to accept the arbitrated award.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it not the task of this House to make it clear, arising from the ballot, precisely what the position means? Is it not a fact that it means in this case that there is proof of the bona fides of the leaders of the unions to talk for their members, which is helpful and good? Is it not also a fact, however, that that in no way alters the basic situation, which is that a settlement must be based on fairness and on a sum which the railways can pay and which is fair to the
    224
    general public? Is not that the real basis behind the ballot?
    Mr. Macmillan: I would not disagree at all with my hon. Friend about that. Perhaps the House would like to reflect on how happy it would be if we could have polls of an equally high percentage in other elections, in local government for one and in respect of union leadership for another.
    Mr. Bagier: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the railway men having voted for further industrial action, may I ask him whether he is unaware that the real issue centres on the question which was asked in the ballot, a question which was compiled by himself with the collusion of the National Industrial Relations Court—with the result that the only answer that the railway-men could give was the one that in fact they gave? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman simply to agree that the vote of the railway men was one of overwhelming confidence in their leadership?
    Mr. Macmillan:The hon. Gentleman must not get his facts wrong. My Department and I suggested, as we do under the Act, a form of words for the question, but the actual form of words was changed and the question was made by the Court. It asked the people concerned whether, in the light of the most recent offer, they wished to take industrial action. They gave the clear answer, "Yes, we do".
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it not unparliamentary for it to be suggested in this House that a court of law has acted in collusion, to the detriment of the nation?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should be careful in the terms they use when referring to a court of law.

    Leicester
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures for unemployment in the Leicester area and by what percentage these exceed the figures for June, 1970.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: On 8th May, 5,308 people were registered as unemployed in the area covered by the

    225
    Leicester Employment Exchange. This was 68·5 per cent. more than in June, 1970.
    Mr. Janner:Is the Minister unaware that even if there has been a reduction—if there has, it is long overdue—in the level of unemployment in this area, the figure which he has given is shocking? Does he recognise that this level of unemployment is causing especial concern in an area which, until now, has enjoyed a low level of unemployment?
    Mr. Smith: The position is not satisfactory. On the other hand, the current rate of 2·6 per cent. is well below the 3·1per cent. for the East Midlands and 3·8 per cent. for the country as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a feeling of cautious optimism among employers in the area that the economy is now on the upturn and that Leicester will benefit from this.
    Mr. Redmond:While the whole country is thoroughly dissatisfied with te levels of unemployment in certain areas, may I ask my hon. Friend to see whether we can have more realistic monthly figures showing where the beginnings of a shortage of labour are appearing, thus enabling the unemployed to be given guidance on where they may obtain employment or otherwise be retrained for the sort of vacancies that are likely to exist?
    Mr. Smith:These matters are always under review and, with our new proposals to make the various services more efficient, we hope that the figures of unemployment will be even more realistic than they are at present. The important thing is that we are now beginning to make progress. I was chided a couple of months ago when I said that in terms of unemployment we were turning the corner. I still believe that we are turning the corner on unemployment.
    Mr. Baxter: In view of the dissatisfaction which prevails throughout the country about the high levels of unemployment and the fact that industrial relations are at the very lowest ebb, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider recommending the Prime Minister to appoint a joint committee of this House to find ways and means of abating the problem of unemployment and overcoming the difficult industrial relations prob-
    226
    lems that exist? Is he aware that the future of this nation could be in jeopardy if something drastic is not done before long?
    Mr. Smith: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. One does not necessarily solve problems by appointing committees. In any event, that suggestion is rather wide of the original Question, which was about Leicester. The important point to remember is that in Leicester and elsewhere things are improving.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the services provided by his Department to help find work for the disabled: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I am satisfied that my Department provides effective services for helping disabled people find work. But, as I told the hon. Member on 17th May, these services have recently been reviewed internally and I shall soon be consulting the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled and other bodies concerned on whether any changes are necessary.
    Mr. Ashley:How can the Minister be satisfied with a national scandal? Does he realise that the unemployment rate for registered disabled people is now 15 per cent. and that no less than 58 per cent. of all British employers are failing to fulfil their quota of 3 per cent. disabled employees? Does the Minister know that no fewer than 14,000 of these employers are breaking the law if they are failing to fulfil their quota and to taking on new workers? Will he prosecute these employers with the same vigour as he prosecutes trade unions when they break the law? Will he not talk about persuasion, since for the last 10 years successive Governments have talked about persuasion and employers are taking no notice of it?
    Mr. Smith:This is a difficult matter. Successive Administrations have taken the view that widespread prosecution of employers in what, apart from isolated cases, are technical infringements may well jeopardise the important good will of the majority of employers in trying to help the disabled. It is a matter that

    227
    we have under review. It was spotlighted by an internal inquiry, and my right hon. Friend and I are giving urgent attention to it at present.
    Mr. Marten:As the percentage of registered disabled unemployed seems to be rising, what have the Government done in the last year, over and above what they were doing in the previous year, to improve the situation?
    Mr. Smith:My hon. Friend is right, but the percentage has risen in proportion to the general increase in unemployment. There is always a three-month lag in the disablement figures and I hope that the next figures will show a far more favourable position. We have mounted a number of initiatives, which we have talked about before in the House. One which is important is a reinvigoration by our officers of the inspection of registers to encourage more firms to take on disabled people. This is having some impact. I hope that as time passes it will have an even greater impact.
    Mr. Harold Walker:The hon. Gentleman talks about jeopardising the good will of employers. Does not he realise that a statutory obligation has been imposed on employers by Parliament, an obligation which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has pointed out, is being widely ignored? The quota system has become a farce. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that rather than wait for a review—the review to which he referred—he has the possibility of immediate action which would meet with the full support of the House? It would be warmly welcomed if he would instruct his disablement resettlement officers either to insist on employers implementing their statutory obligations under the Act or to prosecute offending employers.
    Mr. Smith:Again this matter is not as simple as it sounds. In effect, undertaking prosecutions may not provide extra jobs for the disabled. That is what we are trying to achieve. Even if all those who are registered as disabled persons and are unemployed at present were placed in employment, there would still be insufficient for all firms to satisfy their quota obligations. I do not think that there is a widespread ignoring of
    228
    those provisions. There is a great deal of good will but, as we know, so often many firms have not the right sort of employment for disabled persons.

    School Leavers (Wolverhampton)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to assist young school leavers in Wolverhampton in obtaining jobs and to provide them with training for employment when they leave school in July.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: About 2,000 young people will be leaving school next July in Wolverhampton and careers officers are doing all they can to help them find jobs. It is as yet too early to say what special action, if any, to provide additional training opportunities will be necessary.
    Mrs. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman, despite his complacency, aware that in addition to the 2,000 school leavers in July, we have 273 school leavers who are still looking for jobs, and 73 of them left school last year and have never had a job? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman put this complacency on one side and did something to help young people in the West Midlands who are looking for jobs and who look in vain to the Government for help?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark:It is particularly encouraging that unemployment among young people other than school leavers has fallen since April and, indeed, the position is very much better. The main problem is not with school leavers but with the placing of the less-qualified 16-to-17-year-olds who have had one or more jobs and who are unemployed. This problem is being studied by a working party of the National Youth Employment Council. There has already today been a suggestion of too much talking down. I hope that the hon. Lady will not disparage too much the improvement which has been made among school leavers, because unemployment among school leavers in her area fell by nearly 60 per cent. between April and May.

    Oldham
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current unemployment rate in the Oldham area.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 8th May the rate of unemployment in the Oldham and Chadderton, Failsworth and Saddleworth travel-to-work area was 4·7 per cent.
    Mr. Meacher:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that job losses in the North-West over the last year have averaged about 1,250 a week and have been at a higher level than that of any other part of the United Kingdom? Is he also aware that public investment has been running at a very much lower level than is justified by the unemployment figures and that there is a desperate need to decentralise office employment in particular to the North-West? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to secure this objective?
    Mr. Smith:As the hon. Gentleman knows, his last point is not a matter for me, but I will certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point. The numbers of wholly unemployed in that travel-to-work area have fallen over the past months and, indeed, Oldham is included, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the recent major expansion of the intermediate areas. The position is far brighter for Oldham than perhaps the hon. Gentleman makes out.
    Mr. James Lamond:Is the Minister aware that once again a very serious position faces the textile industry because of the Government's action regarding entry to the EEC? Many employers who welcomed this move have changed their minds since they have found that 30,000 jobs in the textile industry are in jeopardy in the North-West because cotton yarn is regarded as a raw material? Will the Minister have discussions with his right hon. Friend about this matter and try to give some protection to the textile industry and to the jobs in the Oldham area?
    Mr. Smith: I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not accept his premise about entry to the EEC. I believe that for the country as a whole this will do enormous good.

  HOMELESS PERSONS
  Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of
  230
  Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment on policy towards single homeless people; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. These Departments consult as necessary on all problems relating to homeless single people, and work closely together to align housing and social services policies for this area of need. An example of such co-ordination is the working party on homelessness which will be reporting shortly, among other matters, on the problems of homeless single people in London.
  Mr. Barnes:But is not the division of responsibility for housing and responsibility for welfare between the two Departments unsatisfactory in view of the increasingly complicated causes of homelessness among single people in London? Would it not be better if the responsibility were concentrated with the Department of Health and Social Security and if that Department made finance available to the Greater London Council in order to build to meet this need?
  The Prime Minister: It would be difficult to put questions of housing under the Department of Health and Social Security, but if there are any difficulties in co-ordination between the two Departments, the working party on homelessness, which I mentioned in my original answer and which will be reporting shortly, will reveal those difficulties. I do not know of any difficulties, from practical experience, but if the hon. Gentleman has cases which he wants to bring to my attention we will consider them with the report.
  Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Housing Finance Bill becomes law it will encourage local authorities to provide more council houses for those in need?
  The Prime Minister: That is so, and the Bill also makes provision for local authorities to help hostels of the kind which are required for those people of whom the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) was thinking.
  Mr. John Fraser:As someone who will be a single homeless person himself after the next General Election, will the Prime Minister authorise the Department of the

  231
  Environment to confirm compulsory purchase orders and to provide the necessary money to local authorities so that they can take into municipal ownership the large blocks of rented accommodation now being disposed of by property companies, which accommodation, if not municipalised, will be lost for ever as rented accommodation for single and other people?
  The Prime Minister: Local authorities already have powers of compulsory purchase. The particular difficulties which have arisen in London, in the situation which I think some hon. Gentlemen have in mind, are not of the kind of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken. The particular problem has arisen in London because a local authority has taken a particular hostel for development purposes.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
  Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister if he will replace the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Unless and until I make a statement to the contrary, I have no plans for further ministerial changes.
  Mr. Ewing:Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Scotland will hold the Secretary of State responsible for the Government's failure to develop Hunterston and to take positive steps on the Oceanspan proposals? Is the Prime Minister further aware that the people of Scotland despair of the future under the present Secretary of State?
  The Prime Minister:I do not believe that that is the view of the people of Scotland, because they know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the first planning permission for Hunterston, that he has worked to achieve the survey which is being carried on together by the Hunterston Development company and by the Clyde Port Authority, and that he has done everything possible to bring about the full development of Hunterston.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland are well aware that many of their present
  232
  problems are the direct result of the action of the previous Secretary of State, who left Scotland with high and rising unemployment, and with emigration from Scotland at an all-time high in Scotland's history? We now have a situation in which action is being taken and the problem is being solved at last.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has rightly summarised the career of the former Secretary of State.

  EUROPEAN UNITY (AWARD)
  Mr. Rostasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the annual award of an international prize for services to European unity.
  The Prime Minister: I think that matters of this kind are best left to the initiative of private organisations.
  Mr. Rost: Would not a British award for services to European unity mark a suitable commemoration for British entry to the European Economic Community? Would it not also improve the chances of the Leader of the Opposition winning such a prize, as he has so far been overlooked by prize-givers? Does not the right hon. Gentleman deserve a prize for his efforts to get Britain into the EEC in 1967 on less favourable terms than we are getting now? Has not the right hon. Gentleman established his right—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.
  The Prime Minister: Powerful though no doubt all those considerations are, I would still prefer it to be done, if it has to be done, by private enterprise.
  Mr. Michael Foot:If the Prime Minister were looking for a suitable object for this prize, what about a lovely joint of good old English roast beef?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had ever been prepared to pay attention to agricultural matters when he sat on the benches below the Gangway, and if he had encouraged his Government to expand British agriculture, he might well be able to get a cheaper joint today.

  TRADE UNIONS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Employment in London on 13th May concerning trade unions represents Government policy.
  Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Employment to Conservative trade unionists in London on 13th May on industrial relations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if the public speech delivered by the Secretary of State for Employment to a Conference of Conservative trade unionists in London on 13th May, 1972, on the subject of trade unions represents the policy of the Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and particularly when he referred to the overriding need for a common purpose to defeat inflation, with all sectional interests subordinated to the wider interests of more stable prices, increasing real earnings and faster and sustained growth.
  Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that that policy has already done immense damage to industrial relations? In particular, does he accept that the Government's use of the National Industrial Relations Court has had the effect of severely prolonging and exacerbating the railway dispute?
  The Prime Minister: No, I certainly do not accept that. It has produced a cooling-off period which has saved the British public from a great deal of inconvenience and has saved the British economy from damage.
  Mr. Grant: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the outcome of the railway pay ballot demonstrated clearly just what trade unionists think of the patrician approach of the Secretary of State for Employment to industrial problems? Would he not make a real contribution to industrial peace if he now allowed the wind of change to blow through the Department of Employment?
  The Prime Minister: I have had two very important discussions with the
  234
  Trades Union Congress in the past two months. During that time we have discussed fresh means of conciliation. Certainly the Government have shown their desire to find a way of avoiding disruption and damage of the kind which can be caused by these strikes. I understand that both the Confederation of British Industry and the TUC have produced their plans and are discussing them together—rightly so.
  Mr. John Page:Was my right hon. Friend informed that his absolutely excellent speech was received with great enthusiasm by a packed audience of Conservative trade unionists?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, it received whole-hearted support, but by far the greater part of the speech dealt with questions of training, redundancy and other matters affecting employment, which I believe also have the support of the whole trade union movement.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: How does the Prime Minister square the assertion he made during the course of that speech—that what he wanted was not confrontation with the unions but co-operation with them—with the calculated decision today of the Secretary of State for Employment not to disclose to the House the grounds upon which he asserted that the railway trade unionists were not behind their union leadership?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the Act perfectly well and he knows that that is not required by the Act.
  Mr. Waddington: In spite of all that has emanated from the other side of the House, is there not already good evidence that the National Industrial Relations Court is making a very useful contribution to the solution of industrial relations problems?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared for this point to remain a matter of controversy in the House. But the trade unions themselves are now co-operating in working the Act and in appearing before the Court and putting their views to it. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is so sceptical about the matters that we have discussed, he might at least acknowledge that during the first three months in which the unfair dismissals provisions have been in force more than 1,600

  235
  cases have been taken by individual employees to tribunals. This is the part we always emphasised—that industrial tribunals could help individual employees.
  Mr. Prentice:Does not the Prime Minister realise that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) will not do, nor will the replies that the Secretary of State for Employment gave earlier? Although the Solicitor-General was not required by the terms of the Act to present evidence to the court why the Government thought that the rank and file of the unions did not necessarily support their leaders, surely the Government owe an explanation to the House and to the country why they took this extraordinary view which has been proved absolutely wrong by the result of the ballot?
  The Prime Minister: I do not in the least accept that, nor did the court which heard the application, nor did the Court of Appeal. The House is governed by the Act, in the same way as are the court and the Court of Appeal I believe that if—I emphasise "if"—there is to be disruption on the railways, the nation had better see that it is the determined will of those in the unions who voted for it.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his speech to Scottish Conservatives on trade unions on Saturday, 13th May in the Library.
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Perth on 13th May on industrial relations.
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the annual conference of the Scottish Conservative Party in Perth on 13th May on industrial relations.
  Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on industrial relations in Perth on 13th May.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a
  236
  copy of his public speech on trade union and collective bargaining made at Perth on 13th May, 1972.
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech at Perth on Saturday, 13th May, 1972, on the subject of industrial relations, in the Library.
  Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Perth on Saturday, 13th May, 1972, on the subject of industrial relations.
  Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Perth on 13th May on industrial relations.
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at Perth on 13th May on the subject of industrial relations.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 16th May, Sir.
  Mr. Huckfield: Does the Prime Minister recall that he laid great stress on the need to represent consumer interests in trade union negotiations during that speech? Does he honestly think that by prolonging the railways dispute by going through that monumental exercise of trying to drive a wedge between railway workers and their unions the Government have acted in the best interests of the consumer? Or are not the Government about to abandon any pretence of representing the consumers, since food prices have risen by 17 per cent. since they took office?
  The Prime Minister: I emphasised that, if there is to be a new arrangement for conciliation, it cannot be one which merely needs agreement between employers and employees which can be at the expense of the consumer. If the hon. Gentlemanand the Labour Party do not want that, but merely an arrangement in which trade unions and employers together can settle regardless of the interests of the consumer, they had better say so. I again emphasise that the ballot has given a further period without disruption or inconvenience to the British public or damage to the economy. I believe that that is worth while.
  Mr. Meacher: As the Prime Minister waxed so eloquent about "one nation", how does he justify the fact that the £21-a-week railway worker would be worse off if he were to accept the Railways Board's best offer because of the loss of means-tested benefits under his Government's policy, whilst executives earning over £5,000 a year, on his own Government's figures, have each been given nearly £400 in the Budget? Why does not the Prime Minister admit that his "one nation" is a magic circle of surtax payers?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is therefore saying that he opposes any policy of raising the wages of the lower-paid workers, he had better be quite clear about it, because that is the logical conclusion of what he said. This Government have done more to raise the tax threshold through the last Budget, as he knows, than any Government before them. Therefore, let the hon. Gentleman give credit where credit is due.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas:Would not a rail strike now be exceedingly damaging both to the economy and to the interests of the railway men themselves? As the gap between the two sides is now so narrow, is it not the fact that, given good will on both sides, it could be bridged?
  The Prime Minister:Any industrial unrest is damaging to the economy in some form or other as well as being damaging to the interests, both short term and long term, of those who work in the industry. Therefore, every effort should be made to reach an agreement, but it cannot be an agreement which is constantly at the expense of the consumer by putting up fares, as it does in the case of the railways, and by increasing freight charges, which are then reflected in all other prices. There must in a negotiation be movement by both sides. The Railways Board has constantly moved. There has not been similar movement from the unions.
  Mr. Archer: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that he cannot both have a purposeful discussion with the trade unions and at the same time cast himself as the spokesman of the union-bashers, and that strident union bashing becomes no more plausible when it is clothed in legal vocabulary and labelled as being
  238
  in the public interest? Which horse does he intend to ride?
  The Prime Minister: I am having perfectly meaningful discussions with the unions at this moment. This therefore contradicts the hon. and learned Gentleman's thesis. If he is saying that the unions should not be required to comply with the law passed by Parliament, I cannot accept it.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Whilst not wishing in any way to comment on the dispute which is at present sub judice between Panal-pina Services Ltd. of Bradford—a container firm—and the Liverpool dockers, will my right hon. Friend indicate what steps the Government intend to take, when this matter is resolved, to make shop stewards more aware of their responsibilities under the Industrial Relations Act, which very much affects the industrial future of the heartland of northern England?
  The Prime Minister: I do not wish to deal with any detailed cases in the House, especially when they are before the court. The court has already made certain comments on the question which my hon. Friend raised.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that when he made this speech to this packed audience he said that the Industrial Relations Act will not work by itself? He can say that again. He also talked about protecting the consumer. Would that be the same consumer who buys beef, who is priced out of the mortgage market, and who has to pay the new-style Tory rents? Is it not highly likely that he either is a trade unionist or has been a trade unionist, or that she is married to one?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss agricultural matters he had better apply himself to the question why in any particular season there is a greater demand for beef than can be met. He knows full well that this is not only a European question; it is a world question.
  Mr. Tapsell: Is not one of the important elements of the "one-nation" philosophy the protection of the poorest among the community? Do not those who consistently champion policies likely to encourage inflation, in particular by excessive wage demands in relation to

  239
  productivity, strike a serious blow at those least able to defend themselves?
  The Prime Minister:This is absolutely true. It is the fact that over the last two years, when members of the Labour Party have encouraged every exorbitant wage claim they could see, they have damaged those who are the poorest in the community. On the other hand, the trade unions as well as employers and many hon. Members must make up their minds whether they are prepared to help the lower-paid employees without putting such a weight on the wage bill as a whole that it causes inflation. This is a serious, problem. I recognise the problems of differentials, but these problems must be faced if lower-paid workers are to be seriously helped.
  Mr. Ashton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why his Government brought in a Bill containing parts subject to the sub judice rule which gags the Press and Parliament and other major leaders of opinion and yet he persists in making inflammatory statements? Does he choose his occasions very carefully to make these statements or does he blatantly ignore the sub judice rule?
  The Prime Minister: The sub judice rule applies to all courts and all matters before the courts, but the question of contempt is now being examined. When the committee reports, we shall be able to consider the matter further.
  Mr. William Hamilton:Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he and his friends were in opposition they strongly advocated that the Government should accept in full the 30 per cent. wage claim of the doctors? Will he address himself to the question which was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and look at tne so-called exorbitant wage increase which the railway men are being asked to accept? Does he not recognise that thousands of railway men with families, taking into account their loss of rebates and family income supplement and the rest, would be worse off with the increase? So far from the lower paid workers being protected, they will be penalised.
  The Prime Minister: The previous Government were under the same obligation as we were concerning the doctors'
  240
  review board. We accepted the obligation. That is not the position with the wage negotiating machinery in the railway industry. There is provision for arbitration through the railways' own machinery, but it was rejected by the unions, although the Board was prepared to accept it, so the machinery did not operate.
  The second point, which is important, as I fully recognise, concerns the tax threshold and the social service benefits threshold and the level at which they impinge on earnings. I am prepared to look at the figures, but I repeat that the Government, through the family income supplement and through the tax changes, have done more to help that group of the population than any other Government.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The Prime Minister referred to the sub judice rule and the Act passed by Parliament last year. Will he tell us whether he foresaw—I hope he will say that he did not foresee—that Parliament would be gagged for three weeks on a matter of public policy, a political decision taken by the responsible Minister on which he could not be questioned in the House, which must be totally unprecedented? Even when that close period is over, as it is now, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State refuses to be accountable to the House by giving his reasons for the references he made under the Act.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can be correct in saying—I will check this—that what happened under the law was unprecedented, because whenever a Minister makes an application to the courts, it then becomes sub judice and it obviously remains so until the case is finished. It was emphasised throughout the debates on the Act that the court was a High Court with all the status and standing of a High Court. But I repeat that the whole question of contempt is being examined, and when the report is published the House will no doubt be able to consider its conclusions.
  Mr. Wilson:The right hon. Gentleman queried whether what happened was unprecedented. Is it not a fact that the matters referred to the court and which it had to decide were matters of public interest which should be for Parliament and not for judges and that the only

  241
  question which they could consider about the right hon. Gentleman's submission was whether, when he said that he had reason to think that the railway unionists did not support their leaders, he had reason for it which he did not have to state to them and which he has now refused to state to the House, and they could report only on whether he was sane when he made his submission? Is this what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he referred to the Act? Can he give us any precedent when matters of public interest were disregarded by the courts in such a way that Parliament could not debate either those questions or the whole Government economic policy background to the decision?
  The Prime Minister:This matter was dealt with by the judge in the lower court and by the appeal court, particularly by Lord Denning in his judgment. He set out what he considered the Act required of the Minister. Both judges discussed the points on which the Minister could be challenged, and they also discussed whether it might be legally possible but politically wise to do something else. I should not like to try to précis the views expressed by the learned judges in those cases, but it has long been a matter of argument in Parliament whether a Minister could give before the court his judgment as to what was required and whether the court had to accept that. There are precedents for that in much of our legislation. It has been argued in Parliament for a very long time.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman further, but this matter affects the traditions of the House about the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. Is it not a fact that a Minister is accountable to Parliament for the decisions he takes? The right hon. Gentleman says that these matters were fully discussed by the court. Is he not aware that all the court could do was to take the law as it emerged from Parliament? Is he aware that the two Sections of the Act which were relevant to the long court consideration were debated by Parliament for only two hours and five minutes in one case and for only three hours and twenty-five minutes in the other case—because of the guillotine imposed by the Government? Therefore,
  242
  Parliament is gagged in respect of an Act which was passed through a gagged Parliament.
  The Prime Minister: I was trying to carry on a serious discussion with the right hon. Gentleman and I do not think it is helped by emotive cries of that kind. This is a serious point. If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Act should not have been passed or that the relevant Sections of it should be amended, that is, I agree, a perfectly tenable argument for him to put forward. But I should not like to give any further judgment about the Act without the opportunity of consultation and consideration. That would be only right on a legal matter. I could not accept that a Minister must discuss matters in the House which are sub judice under the normal rules. That is a matter for Mr. Speaker to decide, not me. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put forward proposals under which Ministers would take the decisions. We deliberately rejected that course in favour of an impartial court taking the decision.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker:I think that we should pass on to the next business.
  Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. I should like to raise a matter concerning the exchanges to which we have just listened and your ruling, Mr. Speaker, during Questions to the Secretary of State for Employment. You rebuked a Member for not being too careful about his remarks on the court and you thought that Members should be particularly careful in future when they refer to the court.
  The point is that there is a basic difference between this court and any other court in that what is assumed to be the equivalent of a jury sits alongside the judge. Therefore, it must surely be reasonable for Members to criticise the four lay members of the court who are not in the same position as the judge in giving the ruling they have. Perhaps you would reconsider the comments which you, Mr. Speaker, made to an hon. Member about the sub judice rule and the care with which we should make remarks about the court.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not recognise that as a point of order on which I have to rule now. All I said earlier was that hon. Members should exercise some care about what they say. They have respon-
  244
  sibility for what they say. I apply that to almost any question or statement they make. They should be careful about what they say.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)
Motion made, and Question,
That the Report [3rd May] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

That the allotted days which under the Order [11th April] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses,

New Schedules,

8.00 p.m.

Amendments to Part I and Schedule 1,

Amendments to Part II and Schedules 2 and 3.

Amendments to Part III and Schedules 4 and 5

11.00 p.m.

Amendments to Part IV.

Second day

Amendments to Part V and Schedules 6 and 7

6.00 p.m.

Amendments to Part VI.

Amendments to Part VII,

8.00 p.m.

Amendments to Schedules 8 to 11.

Third Reading.

11.00 p.m.

Report considered accordingly.
Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee:

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

  HOUSES EXCLUDED FROM GENERAL DECONTROL
  (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, section 34 of this Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house let on or subject to a controlled tenancy if, on the date applicable to the dwelling-house under that section—

  (a) a closing order under section 15 or 18 of the Act of 1966, or a demolition order under the said section 15, has been made and served in accordance with that section (and not determined) with respect to the dwelling-house, or

  (b) an order under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 declaring that the dwelling-house does not meet the tolerable standard has been made and a notice stating the effect of the order has been served in accordance with paragraph 1(3) of that Schedule.

  (2) The said section 34 shall apply to a dwelling-house excluded by subsection (1) above if—

  (a) in the case of a dwelling-house excluded by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, the closing order or the demolition order is quashed by the sheriff on appeal or determined by the local authority, or

  (b) in the case of a dwelling-house excluded by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the order in question is not confirmed or is reduced by a court,

  and the date applicable to the dwelling-house for the purposes of the said section 34 shall be the date of occurrence of the event upon which that section applied to the dwelling-house by virtue of this subsection.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time new Clause 4 entitled "Houses excluded from general decontrol":
  Section 34 of this Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house let on or subject to a con-
  248
  trolled tenancy if, on the date applicable to the dwelling-house under that section, there is not in force in relation to that dwelling-house a qualification certificate within the meaning of section 44 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969.
  Mr. Campbell: That is convenient to this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
  The purpose of the Clause is to exempt from the provisions of Clause 34—which provides for the conversion of controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies—any controlled tenancy of a dwellinghouse in respect of which the local authority has made certain orders, under existing statutory provisions, the effect of which is to declare that the dwellinghouse does not meet the tolerable standard.
  The Bill in no way alters the 1969 Act procedure whereby a controlled tenancy can become a regulated tenancy upon the issue of a qualification certificate—whereby a local authority certifies that the dwellinghouse meets certain conditions, including the tolerable standard. But, after considering all the arguments advanced in Committee, the Government adhere to the view that this qualification certificate procedure should not in future be the only main method of bringing controlled tenancies within rent regulation. Such a certificate is not, in our view, essential.
  The conversion programme under Clause 34 ought not to be delayed by requirements that the house is up to the tolerable standard and that a certificate has been issued—this would be to confuse slum clearance/unfit houses procedure with the procedures which are necessary for protecting tenants in relation to rent. Such protection already exists in the fair rent system. The only desirable qualification that should be made to this assertion that the fair rent system is in itself sufficient protection is that, for practical administrative reasons—not because the fair rent system is inadequate—it is sensible to exclude from the conversion provisions under the Bill any dwellinghouse in respect of which the local authority had made an order under the existing statutory provisions declaring that it did not meet the tolerable standard. Since the new Clause now covers all cases where statutory action can be taken against houses as houses which fail to meet the tolerable standard, and where the individual house is thereby

  249
  identified and the exemption can be related to it, there do not seem to be any other cases which can be included.
  It should also be borne in mind that, even if none of the courses covered in the new Clause has been taken against the house, it is, first, not decontrolled until the relevant date laid down in Clause 34—and for the lowest value houses this is 1st January, 1975, by which time most houses in this category should have been dealt with—and, secondly, the fair rent will reflect the overall condition of the house including the fact, if applicable, that it is a house which may not meet the tolerable standard. It does not follow that rents in such cases will be increased: There are numerous examples of rents being reduced under the fair rent system.
  I know that this Clause was dropped from the Bill in Committee, and I understand that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will suggest that new Clause 4 should be inserted instead. However, I think that they will agree that something of this kind is needed. We believe that new Clause 1 is the new Clause which should be added to the Bill.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the argument about new Clause 4? The deficiency of new Clause 1 is that it is not extensive enough. It is simply a replacement of the Clause which was defeated in Committee in protest at the fact that it was inadequate. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should defend new Clause 1 in that context and say that on consideration he does not think that it should be strengthened. I do not believe that, but at least he should argue that and he should justify why he is against, as I assume he is, new Clause 4.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member has raised two points which I will deal with briefly. The first is a procedural one. I felt that it was correct for new Clause 4 to be moved, if it is to be moved, and I will reply later, as is the custom on Report, to the arguments on it. On the second point, I have explained, pointed out and defended new Clause 1.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: In supporting new Clause 4 I shall begin by explaining that the 35
  250
  sittings we had in Standing Committee were characterised by a lack of information and a great deal of ignorance by the Government about Scottish housing. I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State, who should have been present at those sittings, has compounded the error. He stated that the Clause was dropped. In fact, it was defeated. We attempted to be reasonable in dealing with houses which were to be excluded from general decontrol. The reason we voted against the Question "That Clause 35 stand part of the Bill" was that we had tabled at least three reasonable Amendments to it. One was to leave out houses of £25 rateable value and under from the provisions providing for decontrol in 1975. When that was defeated we thought it reasonable to leave out houses without a bath or an inside toilet. We believed that in 1972 it was absolutely shocking to decontrol houses which lacked these amenities. Our third Amendment suggested that houses which came under the 12-month period of medical office of health should not be decontrolled.
  These were reasonable Amendments and they were tabled on the advice of officials in Glasgow and other local authorities. Nevertheless, albeit they were only defeated by the casting vote of the Chairman on two occasions, they were defeated and therefore we took exception to Clause 35.
  It might be worth repeating what the Under-Secretary of State for Development said at the time. He made the same point as the Secretary of State has made today, saying that the qualification certificate procedure under the 1969 Act was not disappearing altogether. Either the Secretary of State does not know the 1969 Act or he is at odds with the Under-Secretary. Although the Under-secretary made the point the Secretary of State put forward this afternoon, he concluded by saying:
  "but it will not always have to be used as has been the case up to now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee. 25th April, 1972; c. 1883.]
  We put down the Amendments on the advice of specialists in housing matters. We are fortunate to have people working in local authorities who have dedicated their lives to housing, both as councillors and officials. They advised us that there was a great deal of concern over the

  251
  matter. It came to light when my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) made the point in Committee. I shall quote from the Glasgow document which was compiled by the officials and which my hon. Friend read out.
  "It would also appear that the classification certificate under the 1969 Act whereby a landlord could only increase his rent to a fair rent if the local authority had certified that the house was of a tolerable standard or would be of a tolerable standard if proposed repairs were carried out no longer applies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25th April, 1972; c. 1915.]
  It is shocking that we should allow the situation where rent for houses of £25 rateable value and under can be substantially increased without a qualification certificate and without a guarantee that the property owner will spend the money on the house.
  We heard a cry from the Government side about the "poor landlords". I can only speak from experience in my constituency where the problem exists in tenement blocks. Almost without exception at least 50 per cent. of the flats in the tenements in my area have been sold at the inflated values that must be paid for property today and where often one flat will sell for more than the whole block originally cost. But at no time has the property owner ever used that money or part of it to renovate the property. There is no guarantee if the increase is permitted that the property owner will spend the money on the property. The problem can be gauged by figures illustrating the situation in Glasgow. The report of the medical officer of health in 1970 stated that there were 31,000 houses with outside toilets and 76,211 houses without a bath. In spite of the slum clearance subsidy which will operate under the Bill, and in spite of the actions of the local authority in Glasgow, which is now Labour-controlled, we would be displaying optimism to an unwarranted degree to expect all slum houses of this type to be cleared by 1975. It is not possible because of the shortage of land within the Glasgow boundaries and because we are dependent on the overspill programme which will be destroyed by the Bill. The overspill programme is particularly important for
  252
  families from this type of property, especially within the Gorbals area.
  The people who live in this type of property, the lowest class of property, are generally elderly or unemployed. The landlord will be given a handout or subsidy from public funds and if nothing else the Bill is a landlords' charter. To allow landlords to press for an increase without any guarantee of the money being spent on the property is wrong.
  In our proceedings we are working to a strict timetable and in the interests of other hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition side, who were not on the Committee but who wish to participate, I intend to be brief.
  We have been told by the Government that we should have faith in the rent officers because they will not permit rent increases on property of this type. There is a great deal of faith in rent officers and they are doing an extremely difficult job. I pay tribute to those I have dealt with, but while the rent officer may fix a reasonable rent, the rent assessment panel is a different kettle of fish. It consists of three people. Two of them are professional people—a lawyer and a surveyor—and the third is a trade unionist who is always out-voted. There is no appeal against a decision by the rent assessment panel.
  A rent officer might refuse to increase the rent above a level which would be reasonable for this type of property. But the property owner would know that he could go higher than the rent officer by taking the matter to the rent assessment panel which would award a substantial increase. It would be shocking if our proposal was not agreed to. It would be reasonable to safeguard people living in this type of slum property which comes into the lowest classification, but we do not have here the safeguards provided in the excellent 1969 Act.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues in the Government at that time introduced the 1969 Act, they proceeded from a clear knowledge of Scottish housing problems. Section 44(1) makes certain provisions which are relevant here—I shall not detail them now—and Section 45(2) lays down the terms for an application for a qualification certificate.

  253
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State spoke of the delay which would occur with an avalanche of claims to rent officers requiring to be settled. There are two points to be made about that. First, under the Bill a property owner may make his application six months before the relevant date in 1975. Thus, there is time for him to lodge his application. Also under Section 47 of the 1969 Act, it is possible for a provisional certificate to be issued. As I say, the 1969 Act was an excellent Act. In this respect, it provides that, if a landlord wishes to press for an increase in the rent of a property which does not conform to the standards laid down, he may be issued with a provisional certificate, and he then has to guarantee that, if an increase in rent is given, he will bring his property up to the required standard.
  Many of the excellent provisions in the 1969 Act are not embodied in the present Bill. It is a bad Bill, a Bill for the benefit of private landlords. It will wreak great hardship on tenants in my area and in other city areas. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government, with some compassion and, perhaps, a late understanding of the problem, will recognise the need for new Clause 4 and accept it.
  4 p.m.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: I did not have the honour and pleasure of taking part in the Committee's deliberations, and I welcome an opportunity now to say a few works on this issue. In a sense, the division between the Opposition and the Government typifies the difference between our approach to housing and theirs. Our approach is to use this opportunity to move at an early stage to the provision of standard housing amenities which would not otherwise be provided.
  Many of the houses covered by new Clause 4 are not covered by new Clause 1, for good reason. It is typical that on this issue the Government are giving way to the wishes of the landlords. That is what it amounts to. They are not interested in the provision of these amenities. Neither they nor landlords welcome the idea of it being obligatory to provide standardamenities when tenancies are transferred from control to regulation.
  254
  I urge the Government to take this opportunity to think again and consider the whole question most seriously. We are discussing one of the very few changes which the Committee made in all its sittings. The Secretary of State should defer to the democratic wish of the Committee and allow new Clause 4 to take the place of his new Clause 1.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: This is an important matter, and I can only say that the Secretary of State's attitude surprises me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) reminded us, the deletion of Clause 35 was one of the few occasions when we obliged the Government to think again. Procedurally, I agree, we knocked out of the Bill a Clause which was essential to it, and we shall, obviously, have to vote for new Clause 1 if no alternative is open to us. In effect, the Government have had to retable the Clause which was knocked out of the Bill in Committee.
  What is disappointing, however, is that the Government have not put into the Bill any provisions extending beyond new Clause 1. This is why we have put down our new Clause 4. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say, as I hoped he would, that he accepted new Clause 4 or, as I agree he might, that it was not well drafted—that there were technical objections to it, that there ought to be references to other legislation and so on—but that he accepted the spirit of it, I should be content, and I am sure that the debate would come to a quick end. But he has said nothing of the kind. In effect, he asks us to make a new case.
  We made a good case in Committee. Indeed, I thought that one objection to our argument was that we made a rather extensive case and we caught the Government with their trousers down, being able to defeat them and knock their Clause out of the Bill. True, there were no abstentions on the Government side—we cannot say that hon. Members opposite were converted by our eloquence—but we certainly made some impact on matters at that time. I find it most disappointing, therefore, that the Secretary of State should stand pat on what his Under-Secretary of State said in Committee.
  What is the point of debate in Committee if, at the end of the day, on Report

  255
  and, no doubt, in the other place, the Government stand pat on their original decision? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again. His new Clause 1 is no more than a rehearsal of what we had before.
  I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, and I took him to imply—I may have misunderstood—that improvement grants would ensure that many of the deficiencies in these houses would be overcome by the time the properties were decontrolled. I should like him or the Under-Secretary to expand on that. I admit that the properties which we are considering here, with one or two exceptions, are those in the lower range, the sort of properties which lack the tolerable standard amenities described in Section 39 of the 1968 Act. But the right hon. Gentleman implies that, by the time they are decontrolled in the calendar year 1974, so that they come under regulated rents in the year beginning 1975, the deficiencies will have been remedied and the properties improved. I am not sure whether that is his argument, but I take it that that is his concession.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not put that construction on what the Secretary of State said. I thought his point was that, by the time 1975 comes, these bad houses will have been demolished.
  Dr. Mabon: I accept my hon. Friend's correction; that may well be the implication. However, I must now repeat the request which I made in an intervention at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that he give some justification for his new Clause 1. He ought to develop the case a little more.
  It will be physically impossible in so short a time to improve or to demolish all these properties and in that way take them out of this area of contest. It is just not on. In Scotland last year, about 20,000 slum dwellings were demolished—admittedly, almost all in this category, though not entirely. That compares with a figure of 19,000 in 1970, and with a target figure of 30,000 which the Labour Government laid down as being the number which, if we could achieve it, would mean that all properties in this category
  256
  would without doubt be removed in ten years.
  I take it that the right hon. Gentleman argues that, somehow or other, these properties will all bedemolished in three years. That is not physically possible, and I doubt that it is even administratively possible. I cannot therefore, accept that as a reason for saying that new Clause 1 should remain unbuttressed by any further provisions such as we proposed in Committee or such as are enshrined in new Clause 4.
  I invite the Secretary of State to look at the matter again. He has the chance to make amends in the other place. It is not good enough to leave matters in their present state. It is not good enough merely to add new Clause 1 and defeat new Clause 4 or any variant of it.
  n 1975, under the regulated rents system, there will be houses the tenants of which will not have a fixed bath or shower, will not have a wash-hand basin or hot and cold water supply, who will not have a water closet in the house, and who, indeed, will be bereft of many of the ordinary housing conveniences.
  I cannot believe that any Government, even a Conservative Government, are willing to put up with that in 1975. It is beyond my belief that they are so bereft of an understanding of Scotland's housing problem that they are willing to authorise the change now proposed without any further rectification.
  I strongly appeal to Ministers to think again. They will have their new Clause 1, but they must not imagine that that is the end of the story. There must be some addition to their new Clause to strengthen it and to make Section 39 of the 1968 Act a reality. Without that, all they will do will be to condemn people to live in unwholesome dwellings and be charged quite unacceptable rents.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: I intervene with a request for some clarification on this point, because if we are to vote on this matter surely we must know what we are voting about.
  Could we be told what these provisions mean in terms of a closing order under Section 17 of the Act? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that local authorities dispense a certain amount of

  257
  compassion when handling closing orders, especially when aged individuals are involved.
  Those of us who have had experience of local authorities will recollect what happens when these matters are dealt with. When a committee hears a closing order on a house which contains an aged couple who have lived in the area all their lives, the procedure which is sometimes adopted by a local authority is that the old people are given a life undertaking in that house. This procedure could be criticised, but if we pause for a moment to consider the situation it surely must cause social hardship to remove from a house people who have lived there for 60 years and could be equivalent to a death sentence for that couple.
  If these provisions are agreed, will this mean that local authorities will not be allowed to dispense this sort of compassionate understanding, which is usually reached in consultation with medical officers of health? These cases, though perhaps few, are of course extremely important for the aged people involved. I am asking whether the provision, if passed, will take from a local authority the power to give a life undertaking to an aged couple in respect of their property.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: It appears that the purpose of new Clause 4 is to exclude from the provisions of Clause 34 any controlled tenancy of a dwelling house in respect of which, at the date applicable to the house under Clause 34, a certificate has not been obtained by the landlord from the local authority that the house is provided with all the standard amenities, that it is in good repair, having regard to its age, character and locality and disregarding internal decorative repair, and that it meets the tolerable standard.
  In general controlled rents are the same as they were 15 years ago and in comparison with the rapid movement of all other costs and prices are now at a completely unreasonable level. The extremely low level of rents payable—the average rent of controlled tenancies is about 30p a week—coupled with rapidly rising costs have meant that many owners have been unable to maintain their houses adequately, let alone to provide for any return on capital outlay. Con-
  258
  trolled houses are for the most part being poorly maintained or not maintained at all. That is the background against which we are considering these Clauses.
  If these houses are to be saved from complete dilapidation, with the attendant misery that would fall on their occupiers, more money must be made available. There is no prospect of high rents being registered for houses in poor repair. The fair rent formula in the 1965 Act, now consolidated in the—
  Mr. William Ross: How can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that that will be so? There is no guarantee to that effect at all.
  Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the rest of the sentence, which I was about to complete, he will realise that I was saying that the fair rent formula in his own 1965 Act, which we assisted at the time, now consolidated as Section 42 of the 1971 Act, specifically requires the state of repair to be taken into account. The essential protection to the tenant—which, unlike the present legislation, is not at the expense of the owner—is provided by the fair rent system, phasing of rent increases and, most important, rent allowances for those in need.
  The Francis Committee's report unanimously recommended that all controlled tenancies should become regulated as soon as practicable. In reaching this conclusion it commented on the evidence it had received as to the injustice of perpetuating the present system of controlled rents. The Committee pointed out that controlled tenants and regulated tenants occupying similar accommodation in the same locality, and often in the same building, pay very different rents. It instanced a tenement house in Glasgow where the controlled tenant paid a rent of some £28 a year while the regulated tenant occupying similar accommodation in the same block paid a registered rent of about £115 a year.
  Is it fair to regulated tenants—who were brought into the fair rents system by the previous Government in 1965, without the benefit of rent allowances—that their neighbours who, through chance, hold controlled tenancies should continue to pay a rent out of all proportion to the cost of maintaining the house?
  Dr. Dickson Mabon:This is not a fair point to make in this debate since a house such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a house which is out with the tolerable standard. We are now debating a matter related to tolerable standards and houses which should be within the system. Such a house is affected by all the qualifications laid down in Section 39 of the 1968 Act and consolidated in previous legislation. Therefore, the Secretary of State is not being fair in his argument since we are now talking about houses which are, and will remain, below the tolerable standard for the next five, or even 10 years.
  Mr. Campbell: I am coming to that aspect, but I am at the moment giving the background to these Clauses and dealing with the Francis recommendations. This situation bears even more heavily on the regulated tenant if he shares the same landlord as the controlled tenant as part of his rent may well have to be used to help to maintain his controlled neighbour's house.
  The Francis Committee also commented on the inadequacy of the 1969 Housing Act and again referred to Glasgow as an illustration of that inadequacy so far as it relates to the conversion into regulated tenancies. The Committee saw controlled houses in tenements in good repair but lacking one or more standard amenities; for example, a bathroom. It seemed to the Francis Committee that these tenancies could never be converted under the 1969 Act because it would be impracticable to install bathrooms in these smaller houses without depriving the tenants of essential living accommodation, and also to carry out the work of installing a bathroom, even if there was spare living accommodation, except at enormous cost.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that the owners should take advantage of the very generous grants made available by this Government for such improvement work. But how would the owners find the balance of the cost if the rents remain, as the new Clause would require them to remain, at the existing derisory level?
  The Francis Committee considered the precise point behind the new Clause—namely whether conversion from control
  260
  to regulation should be conditional on the landlords obtaining a certificate of good repair—but the Francis Committee decided against this.
  One reason advanced by the Francis Committee for not making the conversion conditional on the obtaining of a certificate of good repair was that officers of public health departments were already heavily engaged in other housing work and long delays in dealing with applications could result. But what would be the effect of the new Clause which would require a house to have a qualification certificate by "the applicable date" if it were to be converted in terms of Clause 34? It would mean that Scottish public health departments could receive, between the coming into force of Part V of the Bill and 1st January, 1973, up to 30,000 applications for certificates—that is, from owners of houses with a rateable value of £50 or more—as all these landlords would be anxious to obtain a certificate before the "applicable date", which in their case would be 1st January, 1973.
  Then there are the 30,000 or so houses with a rateable value of less than £50 but not less than £25 whose applicable date is 1st January, 1974. Obviously a flood of applications of this magnitude could cause immense delays in issuing certificates and, as it would be almost impossible to deal first with all those houses in excellent repair and provided with all the standard amenities, it would run the severe risk of reducing the present opportunities provided in the 1969 Act to convert controlled tenancies to rent regulation. This would be quite unacceptable.
  Mr. McElhone: I understand the dilemma of the Secretary of State when he envisages his Department having to deal with an avalanche of requests, but he will see that there is in Section 47 of the 1969 Act provision for provisional qualification certificates. If there is a rush of applications, it will not prevent the authorisation of provisional certificates which at some later date would have to be guaranteed if the rent was increased.
  Mr. Campbell: There is provision in the Act, but it was not meant to deal with an avalanche of applications of this kind. The hon. Gentleman is recommending that the applicant should be given provisional certificates immediately

  261
  without the cases being looked into. That was not the intention of the 1969 Act.
  The Bill provides safeguards against the rent of a dwelling house in poor repair and with inadequate facilities being raised dramatically as a result of its conversion from a controlled to a regulated tenancy. The only way in which the rent of a dwelling house could be increased from the controlled rent following conversion involves the intervention of the rent officer. It cushions private tenants on low incomes against any increases in rent which may be made. Under Clause 16 local authorities must bring into operation not later than 1st January, 1973, an allowance scheme for private tenants in their areas, and such a scheme will ensure that tenants who need help with their rent payments will receive assistance.
  The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) mentioned houses below £25 valuation which were to be closed or demolished by 1st January, 1975. We estimate that there are about 30,000 houses in Scotland below the £25 valuation. Since Glasgow Corporation closed or demolished 10,000 houses in 1971, it is not unreasonable to assume that, making allowance for some of those being of a greater valuation than £25, Glasgow will be able to deal with its share of these houses by 1st January, 1975.
  The hon. Member for Greenock told us that new Clause 1 was necessary, and I think that both sides of the House agree about that. He and other hon. Members suggest that the House should go further and should add new Clause 4 as well. I have indicated that this would not be appropriate. I do not advise the House to adopt new Clause 4.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman referred to 30,000 houses being below the £25 valuation. But how many houses are below the tolerable standard among the 100,000 houses which are still in control?
  Mr. Campbell: I am afraid that I have not that figure to hand. I shall attempt to get it for the hon. Gentleman during the course of the debate.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes:The Secretary of State has made a characteristically vague attempt to justify the rejection of new
  262
  Clause 4. He answered none of the questions put to him. A number of my hon. Friends raised some pertinent points. We received no answers.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not make clear what he thought should be done with houses which are below the tolerable standard. He said that they would be "dealt with by 1975". That may mean anything. It may mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) suggested, that they will be brought up to the tolerable standard by 1975. Alternatively it may mean that they will be demolished or closed by 1975. Another possibility is a combination of the two. Judging from my own experience, many of those houses which are not of the tolerable standard have rateable values greater than £25 per annum, and I believe that the figure for houses below the tolerable standard is likely to be of the order of 50,000. We were told in Committee that there were 100,000 to 120,000 houses still to be brought under rent regulation and that probably half were below the tolerable standard. That means that probably 50,000 houses are involved.
  I do not see how anyone can justify raising rents by one penny on houses which are below the tolerable standard. The Secretary of State said there were provisions in the Bill to make certain that rents would not be raised to an unreasonable level and he spoke of his trust in rent officers and rent assessment committees. I do not see the same degree of compassion and justice in rent officers and rent assessment committees that the right hon. Gentleman does. But even granting his trust in them, there should be no possibility of even a penny rent increase on houses with no baths and no internal WCs and where perhaps tenants have to go downstairs and along to the ends of gardens to WCs. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of attempting to justify such a provision.
  If the Secretary of State means what he says when he speaks of his compassion and feeling for those who live in houses of an intolerable standard, he ought to bear in mind that many properties of this type will be open and lived in for longer than we should wish—
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: There have been and can be rent reductions. As I

  263
  said, it is a matter of taking into account the state of the house.
  Perhaps I might take this opportunity to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). We do not know exactly the number of houses. There are 215,000 houses under the tolerable standard, but it is not known what proportion of them are under controlled tenancies. It could be a large number.
  Mr. Hughes: Before returning to my theme, may I say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the figure of 215,000 houses which he says are below the tolerable standard? Some of them must be owner-occupied. My understanding is that the total number in the private sector in Scotland is around the 200,000 mark. I do not see how there can be more houses below the tolerable standard than there are to be rented.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope that my hon. Friend will appeal to the Secretary of State to explain his reply, because he has not answered my question. How many of the 100,000 houses which the right hon. Gentleman is decontrolling and taking into registration are below the tolerable standard? Never mind the 215,000 anywhere else. Will he concentrate on the 100,000 that we are discussing in this debate?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall try to get that answer from the Secretary of State. Judging from the expressions on the faces of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, my estimate of 50,000 is not far off the mark. However, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened to give the information which I did not understand, I was saying that if he really believes what he says and if we are to accept what he says about having compassion for people living in dreadful accommodation, he ought to accept new Clause 4 which guarantees that there will be no rent increases. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of rent reductions. However, it is possible to count the number of reductions on the fingers of one hand and still have spare fingers afterwards.
  Mr. John Robertson: Whatever one may say about rent controlled houses, one matter which is certain is
  264
  that the fair rent machinery does not produce fair rents. How can it? Rent assessment committees are peopled by those with a vested interest in the business. Two out of every three have a vested interest in seeing that house rents are increased.
  I have some experience of the operation of the fair rent machinery in Paisley, where some astonishing increases have taken place. The advice of the rent officer has been thrown aside. He has been told by the chairman of the local factors' association that unless the rent that the association wants is agreed to he is wasting his time, since the matter will be referred immediately to the rent assessment committee. Strangely enough these committees never seem to disagree with the factors' association, which is always represented by one of its officers. One does not find a private landlord appealing to a rent assessment committee. The appeal is organised by the factors' association which represents all house owners and the association demands what it thinks should be a fair rent.
  We have had increases in respect of houses which are below what one would call the tolerable standard, many of them in the region of £2·50, and often almost twice what the assessor judges to be the value. Judging from the way these committees are working, an unfair rent machinery is in operation. There is no way in which they can make a judgment.
  I remember drawing a comparison between rents fixed by rent assessment committees and rent officers in London and in Paisley. I took a house in London built in 1935 consisting of five apartments. A lower rental was fixed for it than for a tenement house in Paisley consisting of two rooms and a kitchen which had no inside toilet, no bathroom and which was built in 1898. The house in London was not in a slum area. In fact it was in Harrow, a residential area. The astonishing result is that an old tenement house in Paisley is assessed at a higher rental than a semi-detached house in London with all facilities and amenities—inside toilets, a bathroom and everything else.
  How the level of rents is arrived at in Scotland I do not know. I have tried to discover. I wrote to the Secretary of

  265
  State asking for a sample of the findings of rent assessment committees in Scotland. Apparently they are not available. The findings of rent assessment committees in London are available. In fact they are in the Library. However the details for Scotland are not available from the Secretary of State and one cannot make a comparison between one area and another. We are not allowed to know.
  What we do know is that the fair rent system is not doing the job that it was intended to do. It cannot do that job so long as we have committees peopled with professional persons who have a vested interest in putting up rents and who very often, if they are not the owners of the properties concerned, are people who deal with houses, who factor houses and who make their living from this business.
  The whole system is utterly wrong and can only give rise to gross injustice. Although new Clause 4 is essential if there is to be any justice, in my view it does not go far enough. I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at the so-called fair rent machinery, because it is anything but the one which is being operated today.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) pointed out that the different attitudes of the two sides in discussing this Bill have been clarified. In this debate on new Clause 1 and new Clause 4 that point is well vouched. It is fair to say that on this side of the House the concern is not with procedure and not with mere administrative matters. We are much more concerned about improving Scotland's housing stock. Therefore we take the attitude that there should be no decontrol in terms of Part V of the Bill without positive improvement. That is a reasonable view to take.
  In contrast the Government are adopting the position that there should be blind decontrol in the faith that substandard houses will be demolished before too many years have passed. That will not do. That is why the Opposition must oppose new Clause 1.
  The attitudes of the two sides of the House can be illustrated clearly by the different approaches of the Housing
  266
  (Scotland) Act, 1969, and the Bill. The Section of the 1969 Act corresponding to Clause 34 is Section 44, a substantial part of which the Secretary of State has quoted. That provided that there should be no conversion of an existing controlled tenancy unless it met all the standard amenities:
  "that is, in good repair, having regard to its age, character and locality and disregarding internal decorative repair, and that it meets the tolerable standard."
  Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the tolerable standard and how moderate it is. Despite that, the Government are seeking to maintain without adequate proof that they are justified, for what are clearly administrative reasons, in this blind decontrol of houses. We say again that that is not good enough. It was said in Committee and we say it clearly again today.
  I am forced to the view that our criticism in Committee was correct. If the new Clause is added to the Bill it will substantially reinstate Clause 35 which was taken out of the Bill because it was nothing more or less than a slum landlord's charter. In fact, it still is. So far as I can see, only one change has been made between old Clause 35 and new Clause 1. Apparently some words have been added at the end of the first subsection. The old Clause stopped at the word "made". The new Clause adds
  "and a notice stating the effect of the order has been served in accordance with paragraph 1(3) of that Schedule".
  It is fair to make two points. First, these additional words tighten the net. They do not relax the provisions in any way. Secondly, if there is any substance in the Secretary of State's claim that houses would be demolished before this Part of the Bill came into operation, the answer must be that these additional words are unnecessary because they obviously contemplate a gap between declaring that a house does not meet the tolerable standard and the service of a notice. Therefore, the Secretary of State can have satisfaction only if he imagines that houses will be demolished in the interval between the making of an order and when the service of a notice is achieved. It is unrealistic to suppose that that will happen.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I thought I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman

  267
  say that the Opposition must oppose new Clause 1. How does he reconcile that with the statement by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that new Clause 1 is essential and necessary to the Bill?
  Mr. Murray: I did not understand my hon. Friend to be meaning otherwise. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber at the moment. I understood my hon. Friend was simply saying that there ought to be a new Clause between Clauses 34 and 35 as they appear in the Bill after its passage through the Committee. Obviously there is a gap which must be filled. That is what my hon. Friend obviously meant. [Interruption.] I will read in HANSARD what was said, but that was what I understood my hon. Friend to mean. Certainly it is sensible to say that there must be a new Clause to fill the gap. We are not doubting that. We accept that there must be something to fill the gap and we suggest that it should be filled by new Clause 4. I understand that for procedural reasons we shall not be able to vote on new Clause 4. Therefore, we can only show our dissatisfaction with the plug the Government are seeking to put in this gap by voting against new Clause 1.
  I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock. At the end of his speech he implored the Government, before the Bill was finally enacted, to reconsider whether some improvement could be made to meet the argument which we are pressing.
  I have pointed out the merits of new Clause 4 in contrast with new Clause 1.
  I noted that the Secretary of State put forward as the merits of new Clause 1 that his version would not hold up the procedure of decontrol. His words were that the procedure of decontrol should not be held up. Therefore, when it comes to the crunch, it is administrative convenience which has motivated new Clause 1.
  In contrast, the Opposition put forward the need for positive improvement in the housing stock of Scotland. That must come first. We say there should be no decontrol and that not one penny of decontrolled rent should be added to any houses if they do not meet the tolerable standard. It is intolerable that there should be non-tolerable houses still subject to this amount of freedom under the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be sensible to exclude certain houses. Again, we have the key to the Government's thinking on new Clause 1. The new Clause and its predecessor, old Clause 35, are motivated by administrative convenience. It is a nuisance to have houses which do not fit neatly into a new or an old statutory scheme so they are to be wiped out by this blind decontrol. I repeat, the right hon. Gentleman said that it is sensible to exclude certain houses. The Opposition think it is sensible, indeed essential, to insist that houses are to be tolerable if they are to be lived in. For these reasons, we shall vote against the new Clause.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 266. Noes 248.

  Division No. 199.]

  AYES

  [4.50 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Clegg, Walter

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstesd)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cockeram, Eric

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cooke, Robert

  Astor, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Coombs, Dreek

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brewis, John

  Cordle, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Costain, A. P.

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Crouch, David

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Batsford, Brian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Bell, Ronald

  Buck, Antony

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

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Burden, F. A.

  Dean, Paul

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F

  Benyon, W.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dixon, Piers

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Biffen, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blaker, Peter

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Eden, Sir John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Body, Richard

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Emery, Peter

  Lambton, Lord

  Redmond, Robert

  Farr, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lane, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fidler, Michael

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge, John

  Rost, Peter

  Fowler, Norman

  Luce, R. N.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fox, Marcus

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

  McArthur, Ian

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Sharples, Richard

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Gardner, Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Simeons, Charles

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Godber, Rt Hn. J. B.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maddan, Martin

  Soref, Harold

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Gower, Raymond

  Maginnis, Jonn E.

  Spence, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sproat, Iain

  Gray, Hamish

  Marten, Neil

  Stainton, Keith

  Green, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Grylls Michael

  Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Temple, John M.

  Havers, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hawkins, Paul

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  More, Jasper

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

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Charles

  Tilney, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mudd, David

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Murton, Oscar

  Trew, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Neave, Airey

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Hornby, Richard

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Normanton, Tom

  Waddington, David

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Nott, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hunt, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  James, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wilkinson, John

  Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Percival, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Jopling, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Younger, Hn. George

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Kirk, Peter

  Raison, Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Bradley, Tom

  Albu, Austen

  Baxter, William

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Bidwell, Sidney

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bishop, E. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Atkinson, Norman

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Barnes, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  270

  271

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pardoe, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pendry, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Pentland, Norman

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth. C.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Probert, Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rankin, John

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richard, Ivor

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lamborn, Harry

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

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lamond, James

  Roper, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Latham, Arthur

  Rose, Paul B.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Doig, Peter

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sillars, James

  Eadie, Alex

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Julius

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spearing, Nigel

  English, Michael

  McBride, Neil

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Evans, Fred

  McCartney, Hugh

  Steel, David

  Ewing, Harry

  McElhone, Frank

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGuire, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strang, Gavin

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackie, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Foot Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marsden, F.

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tinn, James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Torney, Tom

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Urwin, T. W.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mendelson, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Millan, Bruce

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wallace, George

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Watkins, David

  Hamling, William

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Weitzman, David

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Whitlock, William

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Murray, Ronald King

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hilton, W. S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Horam, John

  Oram, Bert

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orbach, Maurice

  Woof, Robert

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Padley, Walter

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 1 AND 86 OF ACT OF 1971
  (1) Section 1(1) of the Act of 1971 (protected tenancies) shall have effect as if for paragraph (a) there were substituted the following paragraph—

  '(a) the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the appropriate day exceeded or, as the case may be, exceeds £200; or'.

  (2) Section 86(1) (dwelling-houses to which Part VII of that Act applies) shall have effect as if for the words from 'which has' to the end there were substituted the words 'the rateable value of which on the appropriate day did not or, as the case may be, does not exceed £200'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The purpose of the new Clause is to put beyond doubt a possible ambiguity in the provisions of the consolidating Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, which specify the rateable value limits which apply, either before a tenancy of a dwelling-house can be regarded as being a protected tenancy, or before a dwelling-house can be regarded as one to which Part VII of that Act on furnished lettings applies.
  What has happened is that an authority on the Rent Acts has expressed the view that the 1968 consolidation of the Rent Acts of England and Wales has had the effect that if the rateable value of a house subject to a protected tenancy is increased above the relevant rateable limit specified in Section 1 of the 1968 Act the tenancy loses protection.
  The wording of the relevant provisions of the Rent Act, 1968, is similar to that of Sections 1(1)(a) and 86 of the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971. Our view is that if the tenancy comprised lands and heritages, for which a rateable value was shown on the valuation roll on 23rd March, 1965, and that rateable value did not exceed £200, the tenancy would remain one to which Part VII of the 1971 Act applies; alternatively, as the case may be, the tenancy of the dwelling-
  274
  house would remain a protected tenancy, even if the rateable value of the dwelling-house is subsequently increased above that limit.
  If the contrary opinion, the opposite to our interpretation, were to be held by the courts to be correct, this would mean that the consolidation of the Rent Acts had altered the previous law. That was certainly not intended. I therefore consider that the matter should be put beyond all doubt, and that is the purpose and effect of the new Clause. I am sure that the House would wish to make certain that the correct interpretation was one which the Government hold on this, and I therefore commend the Clause to the House.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ross:I have no objection to the new Clause but I am surprised that it has come at this time. After we finished with the Committee stage and had decided how to allocate our time, giving two valuable days of timetabled business, the Government slapped down over 100 Amendments and seven new Clauses. One wonders exactly what a Committee stage is for under the present régime of the Scottish Office. I should like to know when the authoritative expert on the Rent Bill discovered the possible dubiety of legal interpretation. Can we be given the time of this so that we can judge whether or not the Government deliberately held this over for a later stage whenthey knew that time was scarce?
  Mr. Gordon Campbell:Our intention in putting down the new Clause was that it should not take any time because it was a matter of interpretation which we thought that both sides would wish to make clear. But it was only recently that the Government decided that this should be put beyond doubt. That was since the Committee stage. It may not have been necessary, but we thought that since it would not take much time it would be better if it were done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 6 TO ACT OF 1971
  Schedule 6 to the Act of 1971 (applications for registration of rents unsupported by certificate of fair rent) shall have effect as if after paragraph 3 there were inserted the following paragraph:—

  '3A. Where the rent officer, in carrying out his functions under this Part of this Schedule, inspects a dwelling-house, he shall explain to the tenant or to his spouse, if either is present at the inspection, the procedure upon an application for the registration of a rent under this Part of this Schedule.'.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments (a), in line 2, after 'if', insert:
  (a) in paragraphs 1 and 2 for the words 'seven days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.
  (c), in line 3, leave out '14 days' and insert '21 days'.
  (b) in line 7, at end add
  (2) Schedule 12 to the Act of 1971 (applications for registration of rents supported by certificate of fair rent) shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 for the words '7 days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.
  and (d).in line 4, leave out '14 days' and insert '21 days'.
  and No. 107, in page 38, line 26, leave out Clause 48.
  Mr. Younger: I should first say something about the present procedure whereby notices are served on tenants whose landlord has applied for a determination of a fair rent. Under Schedule 6 to the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, when the rent officer receives an application from a landlord for the registration of a rent he serves on the tenant a notice informing him of the application and specifying a period of not less than seven days during which representations in writing may be made against the registration.
  Where representations are made or the rent officer is not satisfied that the rent specified in the application is a fair rent, he serves on both the landlord and the tenant a notice informing them that he proposes to consider in consultation with them what rent should be registered.
  276
  After determining a rent, the rent officer notifies the landlord and the tenant and informs them that if, within 28 days, either party objects in writing, the matter will be referred to a rent assessment committee.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who has a particular interest in this aspect of the workings of the Rent Acts, raised the question of the way in which the notice is served upon a tenant. He persuaded the Committee to write into the Bill Clause 48, which laid a duty upon the rent officer personally to call upon the tenant as the first intimation that the tenant has that the landlord has asked for determination of a fair rent.
  Fully appreciating the importance of my hon. Friend's suggestion, I undertook at that time carefully to consider what improvements could be made to the method of serving notices on tenants, and in particular the proceedings which he had had written into the Bill as Clause 48. The principle of what my hon. Friend is trying to do there is one which I warmly endorse and support—that is, to try to devise the best possible means of seeing not only that the tenant gets the information in a form which he can understand and which enables him to know his rights, but also that someone in authority who understands the law is able to speak personally to that tenant as soon as possible after this news has reached him so as to advise him and give him the fullest information about his rights.
  I have carefully considered whether Clause 48 would be practicable and I am very sorry to say that I must advise the House that, desirable though it may be, it would not be practicable to lay an absolute statutory duty on the rent officers that the first notification which any tenant will get is a personal visit upon this point. I will try to explain why.

  277
  First, there would be a considerable number of houses and tenants involved—about 30,000 in the first year and a similar number in the second and third years. This would obviously put a considerable amount of work on the shoulders of the rent officers, who, it is common ground between us, are a very hard-working and dedicated body of men and women.
  But if the House reflects it will realise that if the duty of the rent officer was to give the first notice by a personal visit this would multiply the work very many times. It does not follow that if a rent officer decides to visit a particular tenant at a particular time the tenant will be in. According to Clause 48, in that case the notice would not have been served.
  So the first objection is the sheer impracticability of a rent officer—however many we have, and we intend to increase their number to deal with this work—being able to make sufficient visits to achieve the serving of one notice.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon:How does the rent officer legally get access to a house for such an inspection if the tenant or his spouse is not present?
  Mr. Younger: That indeed is the problem. That is why I say that it is not practicable for the first notice to be the personal delivery by a rent officer. I will come later to whether it is entirely desirable, but it is not practicable.
  Second, Clause 48 applies in terms only to controlled tenants, but it is arguable that their circumstances, though special, are not so different from those of regulated tenants, who first receive a notification of a registration of a fair rent, as to justify applying any new procedure to them alone. Thus, if Clause 48 were, as a matter of equity, extended to regulated tenants the administrative burden would be that much greater.
  Third, where the house is occupied by husband and wife, the husband is usually the tenant and he will not normally be available during working hours. Further, since the tenant would, by the nature of this requirement, not be given notice of the visit, it would probably be necessary to make repeated visits to achieve the result.
  Last, while it is no doubt desirable that all such news should be personally delivered, I do not believe that this is a
  278
  principle that Governments of any complexion have previously felt able to accept as a statutory requirement for the passing of a notice or a particular piece of information to a tenant or in any other system.
  It is for those reasons that, although I appreciate and fully support the idea behind this provision, I suggest that, with the best will in the world, it would not be practicable to carry it out in this way.
  We now return to new Clause 3, which I hope is a considerable improvement and goes some way, together with the measures that we shall take with it, to meet the matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart has expressed concern. I am grateful to my hon. Friend not merely for the matters he raised in Committee but for the great amount of consultation and advice he has given to us in the last few weeks on this important matter.
  The new Clause is an alternative to Clause 48, and I believe that it will be practicable. It accepts the importance of a verbal explanation of procedures. It lays an obligation upon the rent officer when he inspects the premises, as he does now and will do, to explain the procedure and the right of appeal to the tenant or his wife, if either is present.
  It may be argued that the tenant would be left too long in a state of suspense because of the interval between the receipt of the initial letter informing him of the landlord's application and the date of the inspection. I accept that this could be so. To avoid that, we propose to ensure that the visit by the rent officer to inspect the premises and explain the procedures and appeal provisions to the tenant will take place within a week or so of the tenant's receipt of the letter from the rent officer informing him that the landlord has applied for the registration of a rent.
  This is a matter for administration and not for writing into Statute, for reasons I outlined earlier. This is an adoption of a procedure now followed in many areas. The initial letter to the tenant is not issued until about seven days before inspection, regardless of the date of the application by the landlord. In this way only a week separates the receipt of the letter by the tenant and the inspection by the rent officer, when the tenant will be

  279
  able to have his questions answered by the rent officer, who is qualified to give advice.
  Mr. William Baxter: I presume that the notification to the tenant will be by registered letter.
  Mr. Younger: I understand that it is not normally by registered letter. However, if the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) feels that that is important, I am prepared to look into using either a registered letter or recorded delivery. Without commitment, I will be glad to look into that possibility.
  Mr. Baxter: There could be considerable argument whether a letter was received. While I agree with the Clause, I think that notification should be sent by a registered or recorded delivery.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which I will consider as sympathetically as I can.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: Would the Under-Secretary kindly remove one small doubt in my mind? If the rent officer calling to inspect a dwelling house finds neither the tenant nor his spouse present but a small child, is he empowered to inspect the premises? If he is so empowered, how would he make the necessary explanations to the tenant or his spouse?
  Mr. Younger:This is a matter which is normally dealt with administratively. It is the normal practice of rent officers when they call to inspect a house not to do so unless the tenant, his spouse, or some other responsible person is there to discuss the matter.
  The Clause proposes that if the tenant or spouse is present the rent officer will be obliged to explain the provisions, give any advice, or answer any questions. I assure the House that it will be the intention in operating this procedure that the rent officers will make every effort to ensure that somebody is present who can ask questions or receive advice.
  It would not be possible or practicable to insist that this must always happen. There are numerous occasions when it would not be possible. We must accept that it would be possible for a tenant
  280
  to ensure that he was never in. The procedure could be flouted in that way
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I revert to what was said about recorded delivery and the argument about seven, 14, 21 days and so on, which takes in the matter raised by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). It is against the law of trespass, as I understand it, for a rent officer to enter a house without the consent of the tenant, spouse, or some responsible person acting for the tenant. If that is true, the hon. Gentleman's concern is valid and ties up with the other difficulties about notice The tenant should know that his house is being inspected. If he knows that, he is able to take advantage of the administrative provisions and have matters explained to him.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to confirm that no rent officer can inspect a house without having the direct consent of the tenant or his spouse.
  Mr. Younger:To inspect the interior of a house, one has to be admitted to the house. A rent officer would not accept admission by a small child who was not empowered to permit entry. Of course, none of us would approve of leaving a small child alone in a house.
  The tenant is informed by the terms of the original letter that his landlord has applied for registration of a fair rent He is informed that the rent officer proposes to call on a particular date and he is invited to state if that is not convenient.
  Recently I have done a lot of work trying to improve the form of the letter, and I should be happy to discuss this further if hon. Members wish. A tenant is told at what time the rent officer proposes to call. He is given an opportunity to say whether it is not convenient. He may get in touch with the rent officer, whose address and telephone number are on the letter. In the last resort—I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman is referring to particularly—there are instances when nobody can be found in, however long one tries. This may or may not be deliberate, but in those circumstances the rent officer has to inspect the premises externally and make his best determination of a fair rent. The normal appeal procedures can no doubt permit the tenant to make representations

  281
  if for good reasons he has not been able to be present.
  Although I emphasise that that sort of situation is on the whole the exception rather than the rule, one has to allow for it administratively. I am sure that in most cases after these changes in the administration are put into effect the procedure will be that the tenant will receive a letter stating that a fair rent is being applied for, and that a rent officer will call, specifying that date and giving the tenant an opportunity to say that it is not convenient. The rent officer will then call, and he will be obliged, assuming the tenant or spouse is present, to answer questions and give any advice he reasonably can about the procedure and so on. Therefore, the normal custom with which we are all familiar under the Rent Acts will continue.
  I hope that with that general explanation hon. Members will agree that the Clause goes a considerable part of the way to meeting the intention behind Clause 48, which was passed in Committee, but which, for the reasons I have given, I cannot advise the House to retain.
  Mr. Baxter: I am glad that the Under-secretary has proposed the new Clause. Without it, there would be considerable cost to the great mass of the taxpayers, as an individual would have had to inspect all the houses involved, or deliver a letter in the first instance if not admitted to inspect the house. It was bad judgment to have Clause 48 in this form, and I am glad that the Under-Secretary has reconsidered the matter.
  There is a need to indicate the issue clearly by registered or recorded delivery to the tenant. But there is also a responsibility upon the tenant to see that the rent officer gets the opportunity to examine the house internally. Surely it is in the tenant's interest that the rent officer should be able to call to assess a fair and reasonable value of the property.
  It would be impossible to give a fair and reasonable valuation of the property for rent purposes looking only at the external fabric. There is much about the building which could not be seen from the outside, such as dampness. It is surely in the best interests of the tenant, who may suffer a considerable rent increase, to welcome the rent officer into
  282
  his house. I am glad that the Under-secretary has introduced this new Clause.
  We are not sufficiently mindful of the great mass of people we employ, sometimes needlessly in my opinion, doing work that other people are being paid to do. The delivery of letters or notifications to tenants of a possible rent increase is not the duty of a highly-paid rent officer. I am glad that some regard is had to the ordinary taxpayer who at the end of the day will have to pay for a considerable number of rent officers. This is one of the great problems with new legislation; it adds to the bureaucracy that is almost overwhelming and swamping this country. This is a little step towards rectifying that particular wrong.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) should have said some unkind things about Clause 48 after the kind things the Under-Secretary said. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have studied the OFFICIAL REPORT of our Committee in detail—
  Mr. Baxter: I have not, because it would be a sheer waste of time studying the reports of some of the Scottish Grand Committees.
  Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the reports, or if he had heard the proceedings, he would know that, despite the rather nasty things he has said about the Clause, every single one of his colleagues on the Committee gave their full-hearted consent to the Clause by voting for it. My hon. Friend has said that this Clause is not practical but he accepts the spirit of it and that is why he has introduced his own new Clause. I am extremely grateful for all the time and trouble he has taken to look into the problem with which the Clause dealt to deal with the situation which I put to the Committee.
  I would be glad to accept my hon. Friend's new Clause, subject to three clear assurances from him. First of all, we must remember in dealing with the kind of tenant who will receive this notice that we are dealing almost exclusively with very elderly people who have been living in the same house for 20, 30 or 40 years. These are the kinds of people who are on controlled rents, very low ones, and there are few cases in Scotland of people

  283
  who have had a controlled tenancy given to them since the Second World War. It is generally accepted that these people will be over 70 years of age. In other words, they will be the kind of people who get confused by official forms, the kind of people who are not aware of their rights, who are terrified when they get a notice through the post.
  I put forward my proposal because some of my constituents, and this is true of other constituencies I am sure, have been receiving notices of decontrol as a result of the 1969 Act. We all know from seeing this Measure in action that it causes many old people a great deal of alarm when they receive the notices. The first assurance I want is that people will be told what is happening. At present a tenant who has been living for 30 years in a house with a rent only marginally adjusted in 1954 can suddenly receive a letter through the post saying two things. First, it will tell him that the landlord has applied for a fair rent, and, secondly, that the tenant has a right of appeal within seven days. Attached to that is a photocopy of a note giving the present rent and the rent for which the landlord has applied.
  In my surgery on Saturday—this is one of many examples—a lady called to see me who had received one of these notices. This simply informed her that, after she had lived for 30 years in a house for the very low rent of £22, the landlord had applied for the rent to be increased to £200. This is a substantial increase. This lady had gone through a week of sleepless nights wondering how on earth she would suddenly be able to pay £200 a year after paying £22. This lady was receiving supplementary benefit, and the simple answer which any Member of Parliament or social worker could have given her is that if a person is receiving supplementary benefit it is a 100 to 1 chance that the full amount of the increase in the rent will be paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Any hon. Member, lawyer, accountant or social worker could have told the lady this. All she had received was a note saying that the landlord had asked for her rent to be increased from £22 to £200 and that she could make representations within seven days.
  284
  This is not good enough. Many hundreds of people have been faced with this situation. Unless they can be told their rights at the time when they receive the notice many elderly people will go through misery, alarm and sleepless nights. Something must be done.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he is implicitly making a criticism of the form in which so many of these notices are written? Would he not agree that if local authorities particularly, and other public authorities, took more time to explain things in simple basic language, rather than legalistic jargon, there would be less worry?
  Mr. Taylor:I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman is spot on, and that is the point I want to make. My hon. Friend has said that he cannot send a rent officer to every home to hand in a note or explain what is happening. What I want first is an assurance that there will be a major change in the letter which people get when they first receive notice. At present all they are told is that the landlord has asked for an increase and there are seven days in which to appeal. I would like the letter to tell people five things.
  First of all, people should be told that the landlord's proposed figure is not the figure to which the rent will necessarily be raised and that it is the rent officer who decides what the rent will be. The second thing the tenant should be told is that any increase will be phased over a period of years and will not come into effect immediately. Thirdly, people should be told that those who are on supplementary benefit or who may qualify for supplementary benefit will probably, although not certainly, get most or all of the increase paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The fourth thing, which will, I am sure, be done, is that they should be told about the new scheme of rent allowances. The last thing which I hope they will be told, if not in the letter then at least by the rent officer, is that the rent assessment committees can increase the rent officer's figure as well as decrease it.
  I know that many of my constituents have been told by the rent officer "Your rent will be £50 or £100; you have a right of appeal". They go along to the rent

  285
  assessment committee thinking that they will get a reduction, and the rent has been increased. The only experience these people have had is mainly going to a rates committee. When a person appeals against his rates it is most unusual for them to be increased. Usually there is no reduction at all, or a very small one. What alarms many of these people is that they go along to the rent assessment committees saying that £50 is too high and the rent assessment committee says "You will pay £70". I am not saying that the rent assessment committees always increase the figures; sometimes they reduce them, sometimes they increase them.
  I think it is clear from my experience although not necessarily from all of Scotland, that the rent assessment committee fixes rents higher than the rent officers. This has been my experience, although I know that some figures produced by the Scottish Office show that this is not necessarily the case. It is my experience. Even if it was not the general case, if it happened in only two or three or four cases, people should be told that if they go to the rent assessment committees on appeal the figures can be increased.
  5.30 p.m.
  These are the things that people should be told in the first letter. I would like to see my hon. Friend agreeing, before we pass from this new Clause, that instead of a simple note telling them nothing apart from the fact that the rent is going up they should be told what are their rights; they should be told about the phasing of the increase, supplementary benefit and rent allowances.
  The second assurance which I hope will be given is that the rent officer will go to the house shortly after the notice is received. I appreciate it may not be possible to say within six, seven or eight days but he should call shortly afterwards. On this matter of giving advice, even if he cannot give full details of supplementary benefit he should at least carry with him when he calls at the house the address of the nearest supplementary benefits office. We know that some people who may not qualify for supplementary benefit at present may, if they have their rent increased by £1 or £2, be entitled to such benefit.
  Although it would be wrong to expect the rent officer to be an encyclopædia of social work procedure and supplementary
  286
  benefits he should be able to tell the person "I think it will be worth while calling round to the local office dealing with supplementary benefit. Here is the telephone number and the address".
  The next assurance I want is about the Amendment I have tabled to the new Clause, namely, to change the seven-day appeal figure to 14 days. This is not desperately important, because those of us who have dealt with cases like this know that if someone fails to appeal within seven days the rent officers will usually accept late appeals. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen who have written on behalf of tenants have been told that the rent officers will accept a late appeal. Some people may have missed the seven days because they were on holiday or staying with relatives and will think that it is not worth their while appealing late so not do so. This is not desperately important because even if they do not appeal the rent officer will assess the rent and they will not lose their rights. However, 14 days is a more reasonable figure if we are to have a figure at all.
  Could the Government accept the enormous expense of giving everyone who gets one of these notices an addressed and prepaid envelope to send in their appeal if they so wish? We are dealing with many elderly people and we know that they may not go to the post office except for one occasion a week. It is quite a job to get an envelope and a stamp. Why not make it a little bit easier to send this appeal to the rent officer?
  I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for the care and trouble he has taken in accepting the spirit of the Clause, but I do not think that the spirit can be said to have been truly accepted if people are still to receive this same letter, even if it is one or two days before the rent officer calls.
  If the first notice tenants receive after living for 30 or 40 years on a low rent is the kind of letter which has been sent out since the 1969 Act it will be no good. I am sure that this was done with the best of intentions but the letter is not adequate. I do not want people to receive a form in official language telling them nothing about their rights, just saying "Your rent is going up". I want a proper letter telling people in simple and easily understood language that an application has been made to

  287
  increase their rent, that it will not necessarily go up to the figure stated, that the rent officer decides, and that even if he decides in favour of an increase a person can obtain rent allowances and supplementary benefit. Otherwise the misery which many people have suffered since we introduced this kind of decontrol or rent regulation will continue.
  I am not arguing against the principle; there is plenty of provision for those in need. The rent allowance scheme is excellent, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission helps people in need. But the tenants need to be told all these things at the time, and I hope that myhon. Friend will agree with me.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon:I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has said. But he omitted one important point from the list of things for which he asked the Government. This is that the tenant should also be told on receipt of the notice that there is no question of his being evicted. It is this aspect which also causes alarm to so many tenants. They get a lawyer's letter—still a famous phrase in Scotland. Some of the landlords even employ old-fashioned eviction notices, accompanied by another letter saying "Please disregard this formal letter and come and see me at such and such a time". The panic which this palaver throws many tenants into is quite something.
  The reaction when tenants are told in addition that they only have seven days to sort all these things out raises the question whether the 1969 Act was wise in specifying a seven-day period. I shall not go into the variations of how the seven days are employed. If the argument applies to one party, in all equity it should apply to all. I shall not go into all the permutations of how the landlord, the rent officer and the tenant are affected. I will stick to the simple argument whether seven days is a fair period for all concerned. In my opinion, in the light of experience of the working of the Act, the period is not long enough.
  In my two Amendments (c) and (d) I suggest either 14 days or 21 days. During the Committee stage of the 1969 Act I defended the proposition of a seven-day period as being sensible. The then
  288
  Opposition—I do not recall whether the hon. Member for Cathcart was one of them—suggested 21 days but withdrew that proposition on my assurance. I feel it only right that I should now seek to restore the balance and argue for a 21-day period myself. I am the first to admit that a 14-day period might be the preference but I am certainly sure that seven days is not long enough. We are discussing this in a non-partisan atmosphere. We are really arguing administrative procedure, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will admit that seven days is too short a period. They may favour a 14-day period but I would like to see a 21-day period.
  We must think of all the tenant has to do. First, of course, he has to sort out his initial reaction to the notice. I hope that the Government will take seriously the criticisms made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Cathcart. I have no doubt there are also a large number of letters in the Scottish Office pointing out ways to improve the mechanism. Hon. Members may regard the lengthening of the period as merely a palliative, and, of course, that is all it is. But it still remains a palliative. I hope that we shall take into account the impact of what is being done. It is important that tenants should be aware that the rent proposed is not necessarily the rent which will be agreed. That is not often understood. Tenants often believe that if the landlord claims a certain rent, that will be the rent. It must be made clear at the very beginning that the claim of the landlord or, indeed, of the rent officer will not necessarily be considered valid.
  I agree also about phasing. I hope we shall hear more about this from the Under-Secretary of State. I do not think that people are quite so sure that phasing will be as keenly kept to as it was before. I have no reason in statute to doubt this, but is the Under-Secretary of State fully aware of what people are concerned about in phasing? Supplementary benefit and rent allowances speak for themselves.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart seemed to imply that in all cases—and in this he is supported by some of my hon. Friends—rent assessment committees put rents up wherever there is an appeal either by the tenant or by the rent officer

  289
  I do not agree. The last breakdown I saw was for 1969. This showed that about one-third of the rents went up on appeal, one-third went down and the remaining one-third remained the same. That survey was done throughout Scotland and may not necessarily apply, for example, to Paisley, where the opposite of that analysis may be true, with most of the rents going up. I do not deny that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) may be right in that. In Greenock a marginal majority went up. In Glasgow it is suggested that if anything more rents went down than went up. I am, of course, talking about areas with high concentrations of low-rated tenements and so on. It is difficult to be precise.
  There is no doubt that public confidence in rent assessment committees is in jeopardy, and it is right that the Government should be looking at the situation. As we have argued in Committee upstairs, and will continue to argue, there should be a fourth member of the rent assessment committee representing the local authority, the community interest. Some may say that we should dismiss one of the valuer members or one of the lawyer members of the three-man committee, and there is a lot of sense in arguing for that. But whether it be the dismissal of one of the present members and his replacement by a local authority representative, or whether we add a local authority representative to the present three, we have to do one or the other. Either way, I am certain that people would more readily accept the appeals system to rent assessment committees than is at present the case.
  I have deployed my argument in favour of my two Amendments and I have also supported in a mild way Amendment (a), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cathcart and myname. I want now to comment on new Clause 3 and also on Clause 48. The Government seek to delete Clause 48. They wish to deny us our victory in Committee on Clause 48. They have rejected new Clause 4, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Having done that, they are now attempting to deny us the only other victory we had in Committee—the insertion of Clause 48.
  290
  It is bad in principle that the Government, having lost two battles in Committee, should seek to reverse the decisions on Report when not all that much is at stake.
  Mr. Younger:The hon. Gentleman would not wish to be unfair, least of all to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who moved an Amendment which was accepted in Committee.
  Dr. Mabon:That was an obvious and good Amendment which any sensible Minister would have accepted without a debate. I regard that not as a victory but as an inevitable consequence of discussion in Committee. But the two matters we are discussing today were resisted in Committee and the Government tried to command a majority to support them until they found that they did not have a majority. That is why we are having these two debates. New Clause 3 is less good than Clause 48, which was our victory and that of the hon. Member for Cathcart. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not kill his "child" at this early stage by deserting Clause 48 in favour of new Clause 3.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman stop trying to kid around? The important thing is to get something done for the tenants whom he left unprotected in his 1969 Act. Everything I have been trying to do is to put right omissions from the 1969 Act. The most sensible thing he could do would be to agree with me and try to persuade the Government not just to have new Clause 3 but in addition to give the assurances I am asking for.
  5.45 p.m.
  Dr. Mabon: Of course. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so excited, because I am hoping to carry him with me into the Lobby. At present it looks as if I shall literally have to carry him into the Lobby. In a non-partisan way, I am trying to persuade him not to be tricked, if that is not too serious an allegation, by the Under-Secretary of State, who is very good at using honeyed words and at trying to skip round propositions and get away with things.
  There are two serious defects in new Clause 3 compared with Clause 48, which

  291
  is the hon. Member for Cathcart's own. In the first place, new Clause 3 says:
  "Where the rent officer, in carrying out his functions…inspects a dwellinghouse…".
  It follows that he does not have to inspect every dwelling house. That wording means "where he inspects a house", and not that he will inspect every house. Clause 48, on the contrary, says:
  "As from the date of commencement of Part V of this Act, any notices issued by the rent officer to tenants of dwelling-houses, the tenancies of which are controlled…shall require to be delivered personally to the tenant by the rent officer, or by a suitably qualified person appointed by him….
  There is no getting away from that. The rent officer or someone appointed by him has to go to every dwelling house.
  I submit that under new Clause 3 one can get away from that situation. The rent officer does not have to appear in every case. Surely that defeats the whole point of the hon. Gentleman's proposition, which was that he wanted a personal visit by the rent officer for every tenant. He made very good speeches about it in Committee and persuaded us and one of his hon. Friends to follow him. The result was that the Committee carried his Amendment. Having won the day, why should we now give it away? Clause 48 in the first place is better because it ensures that in every case a visit will be paid. New Clause 3 does not specify that. I do not have to ask a lawyer, let alone a Philadelphia lawyer, to explain the meaning of new Clause 3. It allows of certain circumstances where houses are not inspected.
  Secondly, under Clause 48 there is no doubt that the tenant has to be interviewed. It is as tight as that. The tenant must be interviewed. I accept the Under-secretary of State's criticism that there are some tenants who would avoid the attempt to interview them, but this is like receiving a summons or a subpœna or any of these things which one wants to avoid if one is a Micawberlike rascal not wanting to face the consequences of incredibility. But that is a highly unusual circumstance and can easily be dealt with by administrative methods. We cannot legislate for the tiny minority. We have to legislate for the vast majority who need the protection embodied in Clause 48. Clause 48 makes no bones about it—everyone is to be interviewed.
  292
  I appeal to the hon. Member for Cathcart, whom I want on my side here. New Clause 3 leaves the situation open as to whether or not the tenant or his spouse is ever seen, is ever acquainted with the nature of the inspection and over what happens when the rent officer arrives. I do not like the idea of the rent officer trying to make a judgment from the outside of the house. If, under the provisions of the Act, repairs or improvements have been done by the tenant, that will be disallowed in the rent officer's assessment of the rent in such cases. How does he know who has installed things such as a new sink or has made repairs or improvements without the tenant or the spouse being present?
  Clause 48 was a well-deserved victory of the tenants, and it should not be given away now in exchange for a ragbag like new Clause 3. I have presented two serious defects in new Clause 3, and unless the Under-Secretary of State is able to promise that he will redraft new Clause 3 and improve it we should be wiser to leave Clause 48 as it is.
  Mr. MacArthur: The whole House will be very grateful to myhon. Friend the Under-Secretary for meeting so well the spirit of the Clause which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) in Committee. I must say that I am very glad indeed on consideration that this new Clause has been introduced. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said this afternoon, that it would have been impracticable to operate the other Clause as it stands. I think that all of us will be greatly influenced by the generous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart accepted the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in the new proposal before us now, has met the spirit of the existing Clause.
  I have only one major regret so far, and that is to learn from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) that he has not read the debate in Committee. I do urge him, if I may with the greatest respect, to spend—well, it will take some weeks—the next weeks reading through these two slim-volumes, because if he does that he will learn very much more about the Bill and will be able to put out of his mind the vicious propaganda which has been poured into it by his hon. Friends. One of my great regrets throughout the

  293
  proceedings was at the way the Bill was distorted for party ends in the municipal elections campaign in Scotland. If the hon. Member would read the excellent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill and managed it so well for the Government he would see things in better perspective and would understand the purpose of the Bill very much more clearly.
  Mr. Baxter: Do I understand that the hon. Member is putting up an argument against what I said in favour of the new Clause? I was supporting—I thought I made it abundantly clear—the new Clause which the Under-Secretary was suggesting, and I was not in favour of this great victory achieved in Committee. As to the hon. Member's argument that I would add to my understanding of the Bill if I were to read the OFFICIAL REPORT in these two enlarged volumes, I think that that would rather add to my understanding of the long-windedness of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, although I really do not have to read these reports to learn about that.
  Mr. MacArthur: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention because it most effectively underlines the point I was making, and if he were to read the speeches made by my hon. Friend in Committee he would be able to help us in our attempt to present this Bill properly to the people of Scotland and not in the distorted way encouraged by the propaganda poured out by the hon. Member's hon. Friends in Committee on the Bill.
  I was concerned to hear the doubts raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) just now. Certainly Clause 48 provides that there should be a call on every single householder affected in this way, and the hon. Member has raised doubt now whether that would be the effect of the new Clause presented by the Government. Unfortunately I do not have the 1971 Act beside me, as I should have, but my recollection is that it is the present procedure that every house is called upon. I hope that my hon. Friend will indicate whether or not that is so, but if it is I think that the whole of the argument of the hon. Member for Greenock falls, and I hope that he will join with me in applauding both my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and my
  294
  hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in removing a grave defect in the Act of 1969 passed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Member, but he is trying to dismiss an argument of mine by reference to a Section in the Housing Act, 1969, although he does not have the Act with him. This is not really fair. He must direct my attention to that Section which says that the rent officer will in every case inspect the property internally and externally. May I have the reference?
  Mr. MacArthur: The Minister will be replying to the debate in a moment and he will reply to the hon. Gentleman. I am simply making the comment that my recollection, for what it is worth, is that it is present procedure and that the hon. Gentleman's argument is a false one.
  Mr. Edward Taylor:Will my hon. Friend accept from me that I know of no case in Glasgow of a controlled tenancy decontrolled under the Act in which the house has not been inspected by the rent officer. It would be very interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), with his vast experience, if he could quote one instance of one house decontrolled under his Act not inspected by a rent officer.
  Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that my recollection is correct and that the hon. Gentleman's argument is wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart asked for certain assurances about the words which there would be in the letter to be delivered to a tenant affected in this way. He reminded us, quite rightly, that the majority of these tenants are likely to be elderly people. It is not only the content of the letter which concerns me but the way in which a letter is expressed—the words which are used, the way the letter looks. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to blaze a new trail in his composition of the letter, because I am very concerned sometimes about the nature of official communications which are addressed to elderly people.
  I do not want to stray too far from this matter but I recall a form which was specifically designed for people over 70

  295
  affected by selective employment tax repayments. This was specifically directed to people over 70, and it informed them of their rights under the Act; but it was one of the most frightening pieces of official paper which anyone over 70 could look at, and it ended with a line of heavy-face type of words of warning that any false declaration would render them liable to fine or imprisonment or both. This, to my knowledge, frightened one elderly lady away from seeking her rights to which she was entitled under that Act. There have been other communications I have seen in the last two weeks addressed to people who are in a state of some worry.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will give most sympathetic consideration to the way in which the letter will be worded, bearing in mind that the very delivery of a recorded delivery letter to an elderly person is itself a quite jolting experience, and that if the information in the letter is that there is likely to be an increase in the rent that will be something which will cause very great worry indeed. I hope my hon. Friend will consider the content of the letter and the words which it uses, and give the most sympathetic consideration to the way in which it is expressed and to the general appearance of the letter, which otherwise will cause profound shock to those receiving it.
  Mr. John Robertson:There are two aspects which seem to have been missed. When the Under-Secretary was addressing the Committee he seemed to indicate that one of the functions of the rent officer is to make an assessment whether or not the rent asked for by the landlord was correct or incorrect. Surely, this would demand inspection; surely it presupposes inspection; the rent officer cannot make a judgment except he makes an inspection. I think that this is fundamental. It means that in every case there has to be a visit by the rent officer to the house, or by someone from the rent officer's office.
  The argument is whether or not the rent officer in visiting should hand the notice to the tenant or whether he should visit the tenant following giving the notice. To me that does not seem important—not all that important—if the notice is a reasonable one and can be understood. If the notice should not operate till the rent officer has visited to make
  296
  his inspection, then whether the time were seven days following that or 14 days really would not matter. That would solve the difficulty with which neither Clause 48 nor the proposed new Clause deals.
  Perhaps there could be included on the form words saying "I intend to appeal" or "I do not intend to appeal" so that the recipient could strike out what is not applicable. This would save a lot of administrative trouble.
  6.0 p.m.
  Although my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said that information was not available from the Scottish Office, a lot can be obtained if one is persistent. I have a list of 50 cases which were referred to rent assessment tribunals. In three of the 50 the rent assessment committee agreed with the rent officer, but in only one case was there a reduction. In every other there was an increase, and in most cases the increase was substantial.
  Consider what happened in Paisley in this context. For 12 houses in one street the rent assessment officer suggested a rent of £100. The rent assessment committee fixed the rent at £210. Even more amusing is what happened. For No. 6 South Park Road, comprising ground floor, three rooms and kitchen, the rent assessment committee fixed the rent at £210. For the same type of house but modernised, by the tenant, with new kitchen sink, new fireplace, rewired and many other improvements, the rent assessment committee fixed the rent at £210, simply because the Chairman of the Paisley and District Factors Association asked for £210 and refused to take less.
  All this talk about fair rent tribunals is a lot of nonsense. The system must be changed, and it must be made obvious to people who receive notices precisely how they are affected. I accept what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) said about the importance of people not being placed in fear and trembling because they cannot understand what is happening.
  The whole matter could be settled without difficulty. A visit by the rent officer should be virtually obligatory. If the notice required under the previous legislation had been operative only from the date of the visit of the officer, that would have

  297
  met the whole position. That is the case today, and it is obvious that what the Government propose could be achieved administratively on the basis of an instruction from the Scottish Office and without the need for legislation.
  Mr. Younger:Hon. Members on both sides will agree that on this highly controversial Bill we have succeeded this afternoon in having an interesting, useful and helpful debate on the topic under discussion.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: No.
  Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place throughout the debate he would agree with me.
  This is a highly serious subject which can affect people greatly, and it is right that we should discuss all these issues. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) for outlining the main problems which face any person whose landlord asks for the determination of a fair rent. There then arises the whole question whether that request is justified.
  It is essential that we have the closest discussion and examination of how these matters affect the people concerned and what it means when they receive a piece of paper saying that certain things have been requested and certain procedures are being followed. This debate has been valuable for these reasons.
  The whole procedure which we are discussing has been with us in its essentials for six or seven years. This is, therefore, an appropriate time to look at it again; and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for frankly saying that there were ways in which he felt that the legislation for which he had been in part responsible needed modification.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart made a number of extremely constructive suggestions about the form of the letter. The hon. Member for Greenock also made some important proposals. I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurances he seeks on most of the points which he thinks should be made clear in the letter. He asked for it to be made clear that the landlord's figure would not necessarily be the rent
  298
  that the tenant would eventually have to pay. It is my intention that the new letter which the rent officers will send out will contain that information.
  My hon. Friend then asked that it should be made clear that any increase would be phased. I will consider that suggestion sympathetically, and I see no reason why that should not be stated in the letter. He next asked that it should be clearly stated that the recipient, the tenant, may be liable to help through supplementary benefit and that if he or she is in receipt of supplementary benefit, that benefit may be increased to cope with the increased rent. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that that, too, I intend definitely to include in the new letter which tenants will receive.
  My hon. Friend then asked that we should make it clear in the letter that the rent allowance scheme is available to those with incomes which make it difficult for them to afford the rent. I can give him that assurance also; that information will be in the letter.
  My hon. Friend next suggested that we make it clear in the letter that the rent assessment committee would, after the determination of the fair rent, decide, if it was the wish of the tenant, whether the rent was right.
  Mr. John Robertson:Will it also be made clear in the letter that if the landlord does not accept what the rent officer says, the tenant can appeal? More often than not it is the landlord who appeals.
  Mr. Younger: It is my intention that the letter should make it clear to all concerned precisely what are the functions of the rent assessment committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart suggested that it should be normal practice for the notice to be accompanied by a stamped addressed envelope to enable tenants to reply. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) thought it would be useful to build in a form of words for replying to whether one objected to the rent. I will consider these points, but hon. Member will appreciate my desire not to have the letter too long, which would make it difficult to understand, especially for old people.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Perhaps as important as the actual contents of the letter is the language in which it is couched.

  299
  We must find some way of conveying the intent of our law in simple basic English that ordinary people can understand.
  Mr. Younger: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that I shall not irritate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) when I say that I will try to see that the new letter is couched not in legalistic language but in plain English which people can understand.
  I hope I have said enough to show that many of the suggestions which hon. Members have made will be implemented and contained in the new letter. I will look at the other suggestions to see whether they can be included, and I will do my best to ensure that it is couched in ordinary English. If we can achieve all these things, then today's debate will have proved useful because it will be of help to those who receive these notices.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: When my hon. Friend has completed the drafting of the proposed letter—and I am grateful for what he has said about its simple language—would he be willing to send copies of it to several Scottish Members?
  Mr. Younger: I should certainly be glad to send a copy to any hon. Member who would like to see one. [HON. MEMBERS: "All Members."] I should be delighted to send copies to all hon. Members—without the necessary spaces filled in, because I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to have their rents increased unless they have to.
  My hon. Friend also asked for two other assurances. He asked, first, whether I could assure him that the rent officer will call shortly after the letter is received. I give him the assurance that I intend it to be arranged from now on, administratively, that the letter will be sent out in such a way that it is planned, when it is sent, that the rent officer's visit will be within seven days. This is the practice in many areas now, and I intend to see that, so far as is administratively possible, it is always done in future.
  My hon. Friend asked, secondly, whether it could be made quite clear that the rent officer, when making his call, would have such information as the
  300
  address of the supplementary benefits officer for the area or the Supplementary Benefits Commission's offices in the area so that he could—although obviously he could not give detailed advice about supplementary benefit, which is not his particular task—be armed with the necessary information to enable him to advise people as to where to go to obtain that advice.
  Finally, my hon. Friend asked about his Amendments, which we are now discussing, which suggest that we should increase the period of time that the tenant gets to register his objection to the rent from seven days to 14 days. The hon. Member for Greenock referred to his Amendment, which would have increased this period to 21 days. I was very interested in the comment of the hon. Member for Greenock that he had originally felt that seven days was a reasonable amount of time and that he had resisted a suggestion to raise it to 21 days, but that though he now felt that 14 days would be reasonable he had tabled an Amendment for 21 days.
  I was very impressed with the argument put forward by the hon. Member and by my hon. Friend for increasing this period. I would, therefore, suggest that the House, if it thinks fit, should agree with my hon. Friend's Amendment to increase the period from seven days to 14 days.
  I should make it clear that, as my hon. Friend mentioned, if a tenant does not object to the rent suggested—whether within seven, 14 or 21 days—it does not mean that his fair rent will turn out any different at the end of the day. He does not have to object in order to get the landlord's suggested rent discarded by the rent officer. Whether or not the tenant objects, the rent officer is obliged to assess the fair rent to the best of his ability.
  Finally, we had much discussion about the question whether the rent officer must always visit the house, how he gets there, whether he has to inspect the interior of the house, and in what circumstances he should gain access to it. As far as my information goes, it is virtually always the case that where a fair rent is being assessed an inspection takes place. I cannot say that it takes place absolutely always, because there

  301
  is always the possibility of its being impossible in a very small number of cases. But the hon. Member for Greenock will, perhaps, accept that if there were a statutory requirement that nothing could happen until an inspection took place it would then be very easy for anyone to prevent anything ever happening, and then to prevent his rent ever being increased.
  Mr. David Lambie: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) would think that this was an admirable provision, but the House as a whole would not consider it right.
  Clearly, we must expect an inspection to occur in every case except that very small number where for some extraordinary reason it is not possible. But it is not practicable to write in an absolute statutory requirement because it would then be possible to avoid these provisions by the tenant refusing anyone access to the house to inspect it. I hope that the House will accept that our intentions are that there should always be an inspection.
  The hon. Member for Paisley and my hon. Friend asked about rent assessment committees and what their practice has been. The hon. Member for Paisley, with his experience in mind, believes that such committees always raise rents. I would not quarrel with his detailed points, because we should have to go into them one by one. But there are many cases where rent assessment committees, and, indeed, rent officers, have fixed rents very much lower than those asked for by the landlord, and lower than they have been previously. I shall not detain the House with it, but I have a list of examples equally as long as that which the hon. Member was brandishing a few minutes ago, examples where rents have been reduced as well as increased.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Robertson:Why does not the Secretary of State publish the lists, or a sample of Scottish cases, to let us know so that we may compare them with those in other parts of the country? That would be an easy, simple thing to do.
  Mr. Younger: I am certain that it would not be the wish of anyone that
  302
  we should publish details of individuals' rents. [Interruption.] With respect, no one, particularly tenants, would like that; but there is no secret about general figures and about their trends. If it is of any interest—and these are only figures which I have been able to obtain during the time of this debate—the figures in 1971 were that in 25 per cent. of the cases there was no alteration by the rent assessment committee of the rent fixed by the rent officer. In 34 per cent. of cases the decisions of the rent assessment committee increased the rent suggested by the rent officer. That is the case which the hon. Member for Paisley has been outlining. In 41 per cent. of cases the rent was reduced by the rent assessment committee. So it is not true that the rent assessment committee can only raise rents, although I appreciate that to those who find it happening to them it must seem to be so. But a slight majority, nevertheless a majority, of rent assessment committees reduce rents rather than increase them.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: Would my hon. Friend accept that many tenants who receive the notice and get the rent officer's figure are not even aware of the fact that the rent assesment committee can increase that figure, whether in 34 per cent. or 10 per cent. of cases? Will he ensure that rent officers make it clear during the visit that the rent assessment committee can increase the figure as well as reduce it?
  Mr. Younger: Yes, I have noted that point. It is one of the things which I shall consider very carefully in the instructions we give to rent officers.
  The hon. Member for Greenock referred several times to the question of inspection. I ought to put him right about one thing, because there was some discussion across the Floor of the House about it. It is correct that the implication in new Clause 3 is that the rent officer does not have to inspect the house. But there is no statutory duty to do so at present under the 1971 consolidation Act. Nor was there under the 1965 Act any statutory duty that a rent officer must inspect the house. But, as I have said, the practice is that rent officers do inspect every house, and this has been judicially approved in legal actions of one sort or another.

  303
  I hope that with those comments, which I have made as briefly as possible although at greater length than I had intended, the House will accept that new Clause 3 is desirable and is a Clause to which the House ought to agree. I hope that the House will also accept my hon. Friend's Amendments to increase from seven days to 14 days the period in which objections can be made.
  Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary has been very fair about this matter, and that justifies the debate and the decision we took in Committee. To that extent I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). After all, the speech that he made was a fairly poor showing, bearing in mind that he voted against putting what is now Clause 48 into the Bill. It was right that the Government should do it. When they did it we said to the Under-Secretary, in pressing this upon him, that if he did not like the wording he could change it.
  The Under-Secretary has fulfilled his pledge but he must go further. I am glad that he changed the seven days to 14. The hon. Gentleman could have got away with reading what the Bill says, which is
  "not less than seven days".
  Under Section 46 of the 1971 Act he has the power of regulation in relation to all these procedures. The hon. Gentleman could have assured us that he would use those regulations and much of the debate would have been unnecessary.
  The Under-Secretary says that the first letter that goes out will suggest that a visit should take place within seven days. Obviously a person will wait until the first representation is made. Unless that is changed from seven to 14 days, because the person has waited, having taken the advice of the House, he may be ruled out.
  We keep on talking about objections being made within seven days. This is only the first representation to the rent officer. After that, the rent officer must decide what the rent is to be. When he does that, he informs the tenant and the landlord. There are 28 days in which to appeal. I hope we have not confused people as to the state of the law because of the way we have argued it.
  This is one of the difficulties which arises when we truncate our arguments.
  304
  We have many matters to discuss although we do not have time to discuss them in full. We shall have to forgo voting on things simply because it takes about a quarter of an hour to vote and that cuts down the time for discussion.
  The Under-Secretary was right to say that there is no statutory obligation, but he could make it a statutory obligation by regulation. If he would tell us that at some future time he will do that, we should be happy about it. I advise my hon. Friends that, with the assurances which have been given by the Undersecretary and his acceptance of the new wording, the Clause should be accepted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Amendments to the proposed Clause made: (a), in line 2, after 'if', insert:
  (a) in paragraphs 1 and 2 for the words 'seven days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.
  (b), in line 7, at end add:
  (2) Schedule 12 to the Act of 1971 (applications for registration of rents supported by certificate of fair rent) shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 for the words '7 days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.—[Mr. Edward Taylor.]
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  FAIR RENTS FOR FURNISHED DWELLINGS
  Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall by order lay before both Houses of Parliament for their approval a scheme to bring furnished dwellings within the registered rents arrangements; and to afford to the tenants of such furnished dwellings the rent allowances set out in section 16 of this Act.—[Mr. Ewing.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  During discussion of a similar Clause in Committee all hon. Members agreed on the need for such a Clause to be inserted in the Bill. Many hon. Members, particularly those on this side, considered it to be unfortunate that the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr.

  305
  Edward Taylor) saw fit to withdraw their new Clause.
  It is important to remember the guarantees and undertakings which formed the background against which those hon. Members withdrew their Clause. The Under-Secretary said that if their new Clause were to be accepted it would slow down the progress being made by a working party which was studying the problem to which the Clause was addressed. The Under-Secretary expressed the hope that he would be able to make a statement to the House in time for Report, but that statement has not been forthcoming.
  The Bill will presumably come into force on 1st October. The Clause seeks to provide within one year from that date the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament
  "a scheme to bring furnished dwellings within the registered rents arrangements".
  In Committee the report of the Francis Committee was quoted extensively. I will call in aid that report once again and point out that, contrary to the beliefs held by many people, the tenants of furnished dwellings are not the tenants who are in high income brackets; they are tenants who are in relatively low income brackets and who cannot afford to rent more expensive accommodation.
  In replying to the debate in Committee the Under-Secretary said that there were great difficulties about accepting the principle which we seek to write into the Bill. Is it too much to hope that the thinking power which is undoubtedly present in the Civil Service in Scotland can think up a way of overcoming the difficulties and assisting these tenants?
  There are about 20,000 tenants of furnished accommodation. That number includes students. My constituency includes the university town of Stirling which has a fairly large number of students. It is the lot of many hon. Members to have university towns in their constituency in which a fairly large number of students rent furnished accommodation. We seek to protect that section of the public.
  There was no great division of opinion between the two sides of the Standing Committee. We were all agreed on the need to write this provision into the Bill. Despite what the Under-Secretary
  306
  said in Committee, there is concern among many people that if this provision is not written into the Bill at this stage the whole thing will be forgotten and those who will suffer will be the section of the community to which I have referred.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The purpose of the Clause apparently is to extend the fair rent formula to furnished tenancies and also to extend the rent allowance scheme to furnished tenants.
  The question of the assimilation of the furnished and the unfurnished codes, which is the purpose of the Clause, was fully examined by the Francis Committee in Chapter 32 of its report, but after consideration of the arguments for and against assimilation the committee concluded that the complete assimilation of the codes in the manner proposed would in all probability result in a serious reduction in the supply of furnished accommodation for letting. That is a situation which neither side would wish. This view was accepted by the Government.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Secretary of State care to refer also to page 235 of the report? In the minority report Miss Lyndal Evans expressed an entirely contrary view, namely, that it would make no difference to the availability of furnished accommodation. Why did the Secretary of State accept one part of the report and not another?
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is history. The hon. Gentleman knows this, because we were both here at the time that the announcement was made by the Minister for Housing and Construction on behalf of the housing Ministers about the result of the Francis Committee's report. The majority reported as I have said, and the Government accepted the majority recommendation. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides would not wish to risk a reduction in the supply of furnished accommodation for letting.
  However, the committee recommended that there should be a partial assimilation including the application of Section 46 of the Rent Act, 1968—the corresponding Scottish provision is Section 42 of the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971; that is

  307
  the consolidating Act—to furnished contracts as regards the accommodation but not the furnishings, and that rent officers should fix the rent for furnished contracts. These recommendations along with many other recommendations are at present the subject of a detailed study by the Government and any new legislation will be introduced in due course.
  The second purpose of the new Clause—the extension of rent allowances to furnished tenants—was debated at considerable length in Committee. A number of my hon. Friends as well as hon. Members opposite urged us to extend rent allowances to tenants of furnished accommodation. As stated at the time, we had already taken the first steps towards this desirable objective by setting up an informal working party at official level to look into the practicability of extending the rent allowance scheme as suggested. This is clearly something which the House recognises is a desirable objective but it is not something that can be done easily without a great deal of consideration.
  I can now report that subsequently the working party's examination of the problem suggested that such a scheme, while containing considerable administrative difficulties, would be unlikely to raise insuperable obstacles of principle or implementation, particularly if it were to be introduced in the light of experience of the rent allowance scheme at present provided for in the Bill for private tenants in unfurnished accommodation.
  In the circumstances, therefore, it seemed right to pursue the examination further, and I have arranged for formal consultations with representatives of the local authority associations in Scotland in the working party which has been considering all matters of concern to local authorities in the preparation of the Bill and its eventual implementation.
  I believe that there is virtual unanimity of view on both sides of the House that legislation should, if possible, be introduced on this subject; but the Government naturally place considerable emphasis on the need to be sure that it is indeed possible to prepare workable legislation before being committed to bringing in a Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was the first
  308
  to table a new Clause on this subject in Committee. It is accepted that this has not been and is not a party matter. As a result of the consultations now in progress, the Government hope that it will be possible to devise an effective scheme and, therefore, to bring forward legislation.
  From this it can be concluded that we do not think that the passing of the Clause today is the appropriate way of eventually doing what both sides believe to be right. We are pursuing the goal which both sides wish for, which is to be able to produce legislation in due course which will carry out the purpose enshrined in this part of the Clause. But I cannot commend the new Clause to the House.
  Mr. Buchan: I should like to take up the phrase "in due course" which the right hon. Gentleman used. What time scale has he in mind? Presumably, if the scheme is now being worked on, it will not take long to produce. Either it will succeed or it will not. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that we shall see it in the current year?
  Mr. Campbell:If as a result of the consultations and consideration it is found, as I trust, that legislation can be produced, I hope we shall be able to introduce it soon. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a great deal of legislation before the House and impending. It is not for me to predict precisely when legislation will be introduced. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that it is my wish that it should be introduced as soon as it is found possible to introduce it. I cannot say more than that. Competing Bills must be taken into account. This is something which we wish to deal with but not in the way proposed in the new Clause.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray:The Secretary of State has not sought to discredit the new Clause on the basis of its drafting or any technical deficiency. His argument is that the Government may do something about these important issues in due course. I accept that this is not primarily a party issue. The two sides of the House are divided rather on the question of emphasis and the question of the timetable.

  309
  The first part of the new Clause recommends to the House the substantial assimilation of furnished rented dwellings with the code for unfurnished dwellings. The Secretary of State founded his argument upon the Francis Report. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) that even if one rejects the minority report one must take into account the considerable volume of experience lying behind it.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend would ask the Secretary of State why, having accepted the Francis Report and having stressed in Committee what an important committee it was, the Government now accept the findings of the working party which apparently agrees with Miss Evans in her minority report.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have pointed out that there are enormous administrative difficulties about this matter but that the working party reported, I am glad to say—and I am sure that the whole House will welcome this—that the obstacles were not insuperable. However, the majority members of the Francis Committee were aware of the risk of a reduction in furnished accommodation. They made that clear, and the Government had to take it into consideration.
  Mr. Murray:In addition to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North made, with which I agree, I wish to press the point which I made in Committee that the assumption on which the majority of the Francis Committee proceeded was an unproved assumption. They did not say that they were satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there would be a reduction of furnished lettings if the furnished code was assimilated with the unfurnished
  code; they said that they feared there might be a reduction. We stress that that fear must be tested by a practical investigation, and the sooner that is under way the soon we can hope to achieve the objective which both sides of the House accept, namely, assimilation of this part of the housing code to the wider code of regulated tenancies.
  I turn to the question of rent allowances. The Government said that a working party would look into the practicability of applying rent allowances to the occupants of furnished tenancies. It is not altogether surprising that we have had an interim report to the effect that it would be practicable but that experience would be desirable. This might have been said from the beginning. One would have thought that it was practicable and that there was no insuperable difficulty. We suggested in Committee that no insuperable difficulty would be involved. But we are now presented with the argument that it is desirable to have experience of this matter.
  Surely the important thing is to get relevant experience, and the experience will be that bit more relevant if a scheme is tried. The virtue of the new Clause is that, if accepted, it would bring the relevant experience into force. The Clause may be imperfect, but is it not better to go ahead and eliminate injustice with a mechanism which can be improved as a result of experience? If the Clause is inserted in the Bill the experience will be relevant and the House will be able to make any corrections experience shows to be necessary. I commend new Clause 5.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 252.

  Division No. 200.]

  AYES

  [6.40 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Booth, Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bradley, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Atkinson, Norman

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Barnes, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Buchan, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Baxter, William

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

  Cronin, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Probert, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rankin, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dunn, James A.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leonard, Dick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roper, John

  Ellis, Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Evans, Fred

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ewing, Harry

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Shore, Rt Hn Peter (Stepney)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Foot, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin Hn S. C. (Dulwich)

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Sillars, James

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Silverman, Julius

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan Robert

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

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

  Steel, David

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marsden, F.

  Stonehouse Rt. Hn. John

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Strang, Gavin

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Swain, Thomas

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Hamling, William

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendelson, John

  Tinn, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Mikardo, Ian

  Torney, Tom

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Varley Eric G

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Walden Brian (B'm'ham All Saints)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Wallace, George

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Watkins, David

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, Bert

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach,Maurice

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Whitlock, William

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Janner, Greville

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pardoe, John

  Woof, Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Hamilton.

  Johnston, Russel (Inverness)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Blaker, Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Body, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Astor, John

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Churchill, W. S.

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Bray, Ronald

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Batsford, Brian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cockeram, Eric

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Cooke, Robert

  Bell, Ronald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Coombs, Derek

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Patrick

  Benyon, W.

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

  Costain, A. P.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Crouch, David

  Biffen, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Crowder, F. P.

  312

  313

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Petet

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

  Kilfedder James

  Redmond, Robert

  Dean, Paul

  Kimball, Marcus

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dixon, Piers

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Emery, Peter.

  Knox, David

  Rost, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lambton, Lord

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Farr, John

  Lamont, Norman

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fell, Anthony

  Lane, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

  Fidler, Michael

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Simeons, Charles

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Loveridge, John

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

  Fowler, Norman

  Luce, R. N.

  Soref, Harold

  Fox, Marcus

  MacArthur, Ian

  Speed, Keith

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence John

  Fry, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Ian

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Gardner, Edward

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stokes, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maddan, Martin

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Goodhart, Philip

  Madel, David

  Sutcliffe, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Green, Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Tebbit, Norman

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Gurden, Harold

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tilney, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Moate, Roger

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Molyneaux, James

  Trew, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Monro, Hector

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Charles

  Waddington, David

  Havers, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neave, Airey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wells John (Maidstone)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nott, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Holland, Philip

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hornby, Richard

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Percival, Ian

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wylie, Rt, Hn. N. R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powall, Rt. Hn. Enoch

  Younger, Hn. George

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Mr Kenneth Clarke and Mr. Hamish Gray.

  Jessel, Toby

  Ouennell, Miss J. M.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Raison, Timothy

  Jopling, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.

  HOUSE SUBJECT TO CONDITION AS TO RENT UNDER HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1924.
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this section the standard rent of any dwelling-house erected with financial assistance granted by a local
  housing authority and subject to a condition as to rent imposed under the Housing (Finance Provisions) Act 1924, shall not be subject to increase by virtue of an application made in terms of section 40 of the Rent Act 1971, and shall be such amount, equal to the rent of a dwelling-house of comparable size, age, condition of repair and situation erected and owned by a local authority as may be determined by the local authority, or on appeal by the Secretary of State as provided for in subsection (2) below:
  Provided always that—

  (a) no increase in standard rent of such a dwelling-house shall exceed £39 per annum; and

  (b) no increase in standard rent shall be made at less than twelve-monthly intervals.

  (2) A local authority, on application by a landlord of such a dwelling-house as is referred to in subsection (1) hereof, shall within a period of 28 days from the date of application, issue a certificate of determination of comparable rent by reference to a specified house or houses erected and owned by the local authority and such certificate shall become effective on the expiry of a period of 28 days from the date thereof unless an appeal against the terms thereof or against the failure of a local authority to issue such a certificate within the period prescribed is lodged, in writing, with the Secretary of State before the expiry of the appropriate period by the landlord, the tenant or any other party having an interest therein whereupon the Secretary of State shall, after consideration of all relevant circumstances, issue a determination of comparable rent, subject to such conditions as regards date of operation and any other matter as he thinks fit, which decision shall be final and binding in respect of the period of increase to which it is related.—[Mr, Gregor Mackenzie.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  In deference to my hon. Friends who wish to speak on later Amendments I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible. The purpose of the new Clause is to protect the interests of the thousands who live in houses which were built with the assistance of subsidies provided under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
  In my constituency and in other constituencies throughout the Glasgow area there are almost 17,000 or 18,000 of these houses which were built in the 1920s and 1930s with public money provided under that Act. When they were built they cost £200 or £300 and four in a block could be bought for about £1,000. But they were given Government and local authority subsidy on the basis that the then owners and the builders would charge reasonable rents during the 40 years' run of the subsidy. The provision assisted the housing of people in Glasgow and district by providing much needed houses at rents that people could afford.
  In 1957 the position was slightly altered by decontrol, and the then owners of the properties overstepped the mark because they decided to try to sell
  316
  them. The company which owned them, the Western Heritable Investment Company, decided to sell for between £900 and £1,000 the houses which had been built with public money. Most people felt affronted by the fact that the company, which had received substantial amounts from the Government and local authorities over a long period, should then sell the houses to make considerable profits. Its decision was challenged by the local authorities which were involved and the case was taken as far as the House of Lords in order to prove that the conditions implicit in the Act of 1924—that the houses should be let at rents which normal people could afford to pay and should not be sold—still applied.
  In 1968 a considerable number of houses owned by the Western Heritable Investment Company ceased to receive the subsidy. Shortly afterwards, under the 1969 Act which changed the law on rents, the company decided to increase the rents by about 800 per cent. from £32 a year to £260 a year. Quite naturally this caused great concern in my constituency and, I am sure, in many other parts of Glasgow. The rents that were proposed were nearly as great as the original cost of building the houses. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) present because I know he has been expressing concern about the matter. He has perhaps a different point of view from mine because he blames the situation on the 1969 Act. Perhaps he will comment on this later. There are those of us who doubt, as do some of the people in the local authorities, whether the company is using the 1969 Act properly.
  I know that Glasgow and Lanarkshire local authorities have examined the position with the greatest possible care. I know too that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), when he discussed the matter with some of my constituents in Bankhead, indicated to them that he believed that the position of houses built with substantial sums of public money should be put to the Francis Committee for consideration. Even accepting what has been said by some members of the Conservative Party in Glasgow, the phasing provision in the 1969 Act would have been less harsh than the provisions contained in the Bill. The rent increase would have been phased over five years, and an increase

  317
  of 800 per cent. should be phased over a similar period.
  For this reason we have provided in the new Clause the type of rent increase which can be made and the period over which such increase should be spread. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear the point in mind. As I understand the Bill, a substantial increase like £230 per annum would have to be spread over two years and divided into three separate instalments, and this would mean that each instalment would be about £70. Irrespective of how wealthy a tenant might be, this represents a great deal of money and people are entitled to a measure of protection. If the Government are genuinely concerned about tenants they will accept the new Clause.
  There is much concern among these tenants not only about their present position but about what the future holds for them. As I understand the Bill and the statements by the Secretary of State about how he sees the position after 1975, the rent officers will be obliged to consider the rents that can be charged taking account of the price that a house such as I have been discussing would fetch on the open market. Strange as it may seem, these houses which were built for £200 or £300 can now command a price of between £4,000 and £5,000. If that figure were taken seriously into account by rent officers, rents could be even higher than the figure of £260 per annum which I have mentioned.
  7.0 p.m.
  Many of these houses, apart from those in the constituencies of Craigton and Rutherglen, are in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cathcart. With all respect to him, I do not feel that I can look to the hon. Member for Hillhead for a great deal of support in rent matters. I have heard his speeches on this subject over a fair number of years and we think of him as the patron saint of the Glasgow factors, so we do not look to him for help in these matters. On the other hand, I look seriously to the hon. Member for Cathcart for some help on this question. He has been expressing concern, as I have, and I hope that he will feel able to support our new Clause.
  A great many of the tenants living in these houses have been there for a great
  318
  many years, and a large proportion of them are old-age pensioners. They, like others, are frightened by the statements which they have heard made by the owners of their houses. It is significant also that in Rutherglen, Bankhead, Kings Park, Craigton and Kelvindale there is a curious reluctance on the part of these older people to apply for rate rebates. There is, perhaps, a spirit of independence among them which one can regard as commendable but which will certainly not make their lives any easier in present circumstances.
  The tenants are concerned, first, about the increases in rents which they fear and, second, about what will happen to their rates. In an article last year, the Glasgow Herald referred to this matter and pointed out that if the rents rose from £32 to £260, a substantial increase, the city assessor would be obliged to consider that in making his new valuations.
  I have put forward the new Clause as briefly as possible. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept it. The only people who will benefit from the Government's scheme as it stands will be the owners of the houses, who have been receiving substantial subsidy over a long period of years, while the tenants will receive no benefit whatever.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The Question is—
  Mr. Ross:I was hoping that we should have some sort of reply from the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am very ready to speak at this stage. I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) wished to speak; I thought he was hesitating and was about to rise. However, I am glad to respond at this moment if that is what the House wishes.
  The apparent object of the new Clause is to exclude those houses which were provided by private enterprise with the assistance of grants from a local authority under Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, from the fair rents system and to empower local authorities, and on appeal the Secretary of State, to fix rents for such houses, subject to the same limitations regarding maximum increases and frequency of increase as will apply in the public sector under the Bill.

  319
  The subsidy which was payable under the 1924 Act on completion of a house lasted for 40 years. After the payments cease, at the end of the 40 years, the houses join the ordinary stock of housing in Scotland. The subsidy under the 1924 Act was a measure designed to encourage the building of houses for letting at that time. The subsidy conditions restricted the rents, but after payment of the subsidy ends it is appropriate that the houses should be subject to the same laws as apply to all other privately rented houses.
  No principle has ever been established that Exchequer assistance should be a ground for excluding a house from the fair rent provisions of the Rent Act. Indeed, the 1969 Act introduced by the Labour Government specifically enabled the rent of a house improved with the aid of grant to reflect fully the improved value of the house.
  The new Clause would have the effect of creating a privileged category of tenant who, by chance, occupies a house built with the aid of subsidy over 40 years ago and who would for this reason, and this reason alone, pay a rent lower than a fair rent.
  What justification is there for treating these tenants differently from tenants of other controlled houses? The rents have remained virtually unchanged since the houses were built. The increases allowed under the 1957 Act did no more than make up the reduction resulting from the abolition of owners' rates in 1956.
  The tenants of these houses, whether the tenancies are converted under the 1969 Act procedure or under the proposals in Clause 34 of the Bill, will be treated exactly the same as all other tenants in similar circumstances. They will have the same opportunity to state their case to the rent officer and to the rent assessment committee. The fair rent will be determined under the same statutory provisions, namely, Section 42 of the consolidation Act, the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971; the same factors will be taken into account and discounted, and, in particular the age, character and locality of the house and its state of repair will be considered, while the scarcity element and any improvements or replacement of fixtures or fittings carried out by the tenant will be disregarded.
  320
  Where a tenancy is converted from being a controlled tenancy into a regulated tenancy, either following upon the issue of a qualification certificate under the 1969 Act procedure or by virtue of Clause 34 of the Bill, any increase in rent up to the amount registered will be phased under Schedule 13 to the 1971 Act or Schedule 6 to the Bill, respectively.
  As I have said, subsidy under the 1924 Act is payable for 40 years from completion of the house. Subsidy is no longer being paid in respect of some of the houses and it is, therefore, already possible, if they are let under regulated tenancies and are no longer controlled, for fair rents to be fixed under existing legislation. Some such fair rents have, in fact, been fixed. The Opposition, when they were in power, did not see anything strange in that. They saw nothing wrong in it, and neither do I. Their legislation—I speak in particular of the 1969 Act—made no provision to create a special category for these houses, which are now gradually coming out of the 40-year period during which subsidy was payable. The houses built after the 1924 Act, in the later 1920s and early 1930s, have been coming and will continue to come out of that 40-year subsidy period.
  The Labour Government made no provision in their scheme to exclude such houses from the fair rents system when subsidy was no longer paid and they joined the stock of Scottish housing.
  Mr. Bruce Millan rose—
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman had his chance to speak a few moments ago. No doubt he will seek an opportunity in due course. I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and I understand the point he makes, which, to put it briefly, is that tenants who thought that they were in a protected category may suddenly find themselves no longer in that category.
  If the new Clause were to be adopted those tenants would then be in a new, special category different from other tenants in similar houses. It would be wrong to create a special category of this kind if they go into the fair rent system. When the period of subsidy ends they will have all the opportunities

  321
  and protection which the system introduced by the last Government gives them, in the same way as other tenants occupying similar accommodation.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does not the Secretary of State mean that the landlords would be placed in a special position? Unlike the other landlords they received a public subsidy, yet they are being treated as if they were landlords who had built entirely from their own private resources. Is not the Secretary of State aware of the Departmental files of evidence produced by the Western Heritable Investment Company tenants to Ministers when they were advised to present their evidence to the Francis Committee? Is he not aware of what the deliberations were, the evidence and the correspondence, and whether there was a case for them to be allowed special provisions?
  Mr. Campbell: I have been talking about that case. The hon. Gentleman's first point concerns landlords. During the 40 years that the houses received subsidy the rent has virtually stood still. Rents have been at late 1920s or early 1930s rates and extremely low. The houses have presumably been kept in basic repair because the landlords have received some subsidy. They have not been entirely dependent upon the small rent to keep the houses in repair. The last Government brought in a fair rent system so that there should be more money for repairs to keep the houses from falling into complete decay and dilapidation. For those reasons these houses, when they came into this same category, were not excluded by the last Government in their legislation.
  There was a reference to the Francis Committee. That Committee has now reported but we have reached the conclusion that there is no case for creating a new, special category. The landlords are not in a new special category. They will be in the same position as other landlords under the fair rent system. They have had special protection, if that is the right word, while receiving the subsidy because they were able to keep the houses in repair under that subsidy. There is no question of their being in a special category as opposed to other owners of houses of this kind.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Can my right hon. Friend tell the
  322
  House whether other houses were buit during this period for private letting? think the answer is "No". There wen no houses being let privately and it was only because of this subsidy that the houses could be built for letting.
  Mr. Campbell: I am sure that my hon Friend's knowledge of the housing posi tion in the late 1920s and 1930s is greate than mine. If he says that was the case I am sure it is right. It is clear that this subsidy was introduced by the 1924 Act nearly 50 years ago, to encourage the building of houses for private letting, anc the subsidy arrangements were made accordingly. When those subsidy arrangements ran out after a house had been completed and in existence for 40 years there was no special arrangement govern ing the period following.
  There should be no argument between the two Front Benches on this matter The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr Dickson Mabon), who was a Minister ir the Scottish Office dealing with this subject at the time of his own 1965 and 1969 legislation, made no special arrangements to exclude these categories. The hon Gentleman made reference to the Francis Committee but that was all that the last Government did.
  For the reasons I have stated, we feel that the tenants will get the protection which they should have from the fair rents system like other tenants in similar circumstances.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Can the Secretary of State specify how much has been paid to the Western Heritable Investment Company over the years for the thousands of houses that it built?
  Mr. Campbell: Without notice I cannot. I am not sure that such a figure will be available. I will see during the course of this debate whether we can answer that question. However, it is irrelevant to this part of the Clause because the houses were built in the late 1920s and early 1930s after the Act was passed, so tney are gradually coming one by one to the end of their 40 years. What we are dealing with now is whether they should come into the fair rent system introduced by the last Government which we have been improving upon. That is the question before us and I cannot commend the new Clause to the House.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Millan: That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. The reason why there was a slight hesitation on my part in getting up when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie) sat down was that I fully expected either the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who we all know is a considerable friend of the Glasgow landlords, or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) who has been willing to make speeches about this particular problem of his tenants, particularly when there was a Labour Government, at the drop of a hat to the King's Park Tenants' Association and anybody else that cared to invite him, would rise. I thought one of them might have got up and said something about this new Clause. I am astounded that they have not done so.
  Mr. Edward Taylor rose—
  Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for Cathcart is now getting into one of his states of excitement, but perhaps he will allow me to make my speech. He can then let us have the benefit of his wisdom on this matter.
  The argument we have just had from the Secretary of State is a completely invalid one. These houses axe not ordinary privately built houses for letting. They are in an entirely different category and they should be treated entirely differently. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen has explained the background to the building of these houses adequately and I need not go over the matters that he dealt with. It is true that under the existing legislation, before this Bill came forward, some of these houses have been eligible to be treated under the fair rent procedure. First, the number is extremely limited, and, secondly, the Bill will convert all these houses from the present situation to the fair rent procedure. The effect of the 1965 Act was to place a limit on rent increases which would otherwise have been completely unlimited under the rent decontrol provision of the 1957 Act of the previous Conservative Government.
  I make that point particularly as the hon. Member for Cathcart has been assiduous over a long period in misleading tenants' associations into thinking that
  324
  the only reason they have ever had to bear increases in rent has been the provisions of the 1965 Act. The position is entirely different. Without the 1965 Act the limited number of houses that were involved would have had the possibility of unlimited increases imposed upon them. The 1965 Act limited these provisions by the fair rents provision.
  A more important matter which the Secretary of State does not seem to understand, and which was to be the point of my intervention, is that the kind of massive increases that we are now talking about have happened only within the last year or so. They did not happen under the Labour Government prior to June, 1970. Not one of the houses in my constituency has been subjected to any massive rent increases prior to June, 1970. We are now dealing with an entirely new situation and an entirely new problem.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell rose—
  Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman was very reluctant to give way to me; otherwise I should be glad to give way to him now. If he is saying that there are houses in my constituency for which there were massive increases in rent prior to June, 1970, I shall be glad to hear him say so.
  Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. Any increases that are taking place now are entirely the results of legislation passed by the Labour Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. There is nothing in the Bill and nothing that we have passed since being in office, since June, 1970, which has altered those rents.
  Mr. Millan:The right hon. Gentleman is simply confirming my point. He is not denying that the increases which we are discussing are not increases that occurred under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, they are.
  Mr. Millan: They did not happen prior to June, 1970. When my hon. Friends met the tenants' associations in June, 1970, they gave them every indication that, as well as the matter being referred to the Francis Committee, the Labour Government at the time recognised that as these houses fell out of subsidy—and

  325
  they have done that post-1970—there would have to be special legislation for them.
  It is misleading for the right hon. Gentleman—and, to be fair to him, I think that he is simply ignorant of the facts—to pretend that this is something always intended by the Labour Government's legislation. It is not a problem that arose prior to June, 1970, and I defy him to bring me one example from my constituency, or anywhere else, of a massive rent increase before June, 1970. It is a problem which is arising now and it is a problem which demands attention now and it would have had attention from a Labour Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that these houses will be subject to the fair rent procedures that will apply to any other kind of private tenancies, that they will be subject to phasing and rebates and so on. I object to the extension of the fair rent procedure in the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman completely misses the basis of the fair rent system. It was to provide a fair rent not only for the tenant but for the landlord. A fair rent to the landlord meant taking account of the fact that, because of rent control over a long period of years, many landlords have had inadequate returns from rented properties. It was recognised that this was a genuine problem.
  Mr. Galbraith:The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting observation. Is he saying that the rises in rent had a retrospective effect? If that is what he is saying, his argument is without foundation.
  Mr. Millan: I have not made that argument and that intervention was a complete waste of time. The fair rent provisions were designed to give a fair rent to the landlord as well as to the tenant and to recognise that many landlords had had a bad deal financially over the period of rent control.
  But that does not apply to these houses. The landlords of these houses have not had a bad deal by any kind of argument. Indeed, they have been cossetted from the start. There was no risk in building these houses, for they were built with Government and local authority subsidy. The landlords have made a killing
  326
  out of these houses, and the tenants in Rutherglen and in Cathcart and in my constituency know it. There is no question of retrospectively recompensing landlords who have invested money in property and then suffered because of rent control over the years. The landlords of these houses have never been at risk, have never lost any money. The money going to them under the Bill, unless we accept the new Clause, will merely add to their profits, not recompense them for losses which they have made on these houses in the past, for they have not made losses on these houses in the past.
  That puts these houses in a category entirely different from that of the normally privately rented houses, and it means that the fair rent provisions are completely inappropriate to them. These houses were built for about £300 apiece, and they now attract rents of £260 after 40 years of Government and local authority subsidy. Many of these houses have been sold, and their current price is now about £4,500.
  It is an absolute scandal that we should be allowing this state of affairs to continue. Basically, these houses are analogous to local authority houses, and it is monstrous that there should not be special provision for them in the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman must realise, I am not enamoured of the Bill's proposals for local authority houses and I should have preferred the new Clause to go a good deal further, but at least these houses should be on the same basis as local authority houses.
  That would considerably reduce the increases which the tenants of these houses would have to pay. Many of them are elderly. This is not just another sob story. We have heard much about elderly tenants and we know their problems, but there is a preponderance of elderly tenants in these houses because the houses were built 40 years ago and were let largely to young newly married couples many of whom are now pensioners. Many of them are extremely alarmed about the increases now being notified to them, admittedly under existing legislation, without any kind of protection introduced since 1970 and with no protection provided by the Bill.
  The Clause would put these tenants on all fours with local authority tenants and

  327
  would modify the increases. Many of the tenants admit that the present rents are too low—as I do—for they are not unreasonable people. Incidentally, most of them vote for hon. Gentlemen opposite rather than for my party, but they are reasonable people despite that. They admit that rents are too low and they would be happy to accept comparability with local authority tenants. What they are not willing to accept are the monstrous increases with which they will be faced unless some provision like the new Clause is introduced.
  The new Clause would be over-generous to landlords, but in the interests of moderation and compromise it is the least we should have. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position and not treat the matter as complacently as he did when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen. There is considerable dismay, apprehension and anger among these tenants about what they rightly regard as the Government's complete unawareness of their problems and the Government's inability if not unwillingness to produce some kind of reasonable solution for them.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has made a savage attack on the Government for failing to do something about the problems of tenants of Western Heritable Investments. He has been assiduous and conscientious in looking after the interests of his tenants, but I think that if he reads his speech tomorrow he will realise that he has been blatantly unfair to the Government and has totally misled the House, although not deliberately, about the activities of the Labour Government, particularly the activities of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) who so happily introduced the 1969 Act by which the rents of these houses are now being increased.
  It should be said at once that, as the hon. Member for Craigton is well aware, the rents of these houses are being increased now. Rent determinations are being made now and applications are being made now. The Bill is not yet law and will not be law for some time. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should make it absolutely clear to the tenants of Western Heritable houses that
  328
  the increases now being introduced and about which they are greatly concerned and about which they are holding meetings, which the hon. Member and I have attended, result from the 1969 Act by which houses which were controlled are being brought into decontrol.
  7.30 p.m.
  The hon. Member made a fair point. He said "It is all very well but the fact is that until we had a Tory Government nothing was happening to the rents there; they were still relatively low and were not increasing". He said that the tenants are very concerned at the fact that since the Tory Government came into office something has happened. The hon. Member will find the reason for this in a letter that I received from the hon. Member for Greenock, at that time Minister of State for Scotland. I wrote to him in April, 1970, because the tenants of King's Park and Croftfoot had been concerned whether the new Bill which the hon. Member had introduced would affect their rents. I was interested in the matter and I wrote to the hon. Member for Greenock asking whether that was the case, and whether the rents would be increased. He explained quite fairly that the houses which the Western Heritable Investment Company owned had been built between 1928 and 1932, under the 1924 Act, which provided for an annual subsidy from local authorities, to which the Exchequer made a contribution, payable over 40 years, on condition that the rents were fixed by the local authorities.
  The houses were also covered by the Rent Acts up to 1967. All tenancies were therefore controlled, and until the 40 years run out the rents cannot be increased without the specific approval of the local authorities, according to the splendid advice that the hon. Member for Greenock so kindly gave me in his prompt reply to my letter. The fact that the rents have not been increased is not due to any splendid or altruistic concern of the Labour Government but simply because, under the legislation of 1924, the rents could not be adjusted without the specific approval of the local authorities.
  I asked the hon. Member for Greenock whether the rents of these houses would come up to the fair rents level as proposed under the 1969 Measure. I had a meeting with the tenants on 5th June,

  329
  1970, and at that point we specifically asked whether there was a possibility of phasing being introduced at a more reasonable level—in other words, whether there could be the same kind of restriction as that imposed by the prices and incomes legislation, and which was available for corporation tenants. The hon. Gentleman explained that that was not possible.
  He admitted that the whole question of the operation of the Rent Acts was being considered by the Francis Committee, but he gave us no hope that something would be done to place the rents of these houses on the same basis as the rents of corporation houses.
  If the hon. Member for Craigton has any information in writing—and I had a long correspondence with the hon. Member for Greenock about this—to the effect that the previous Government said that they would make special provision for the WHI I should be glad to have it, because I have a letter from his hon. Friend dated 22nd April, 1970—only two or three months before he went out of office at the General Election—giving a clear indication that the1969 Act would apply to tenants of the WHI company houses. That is clearly spelled out. The letter is here, and is on the record for everyone to see.
  In order to try to put the record straight we should appreciate precisely what the new Bill will mean to WHI tenants. Their rents are being increased and can be increased to the fair rent level under the existing 1969 legislation. There is not one WHI house in Scotland which cannot have its rent increased to a fair rent level under the Labour Government's legislation so long as a qualification certificate is obtained.
  Although applications in respect of individual houses have been turned down by local authorities because of defects, generally speaking the tolerable standards of these houses ensure that the majority automatically qualify. The basic difference between the situation now and that which will exist when the new Bill becomes law is that the qualification certificate goes.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: If the Labour Government's legislation was as bad as the hon. Member suggests, what is wrong with improving it by accepting my new Clause?
  Mr. Taylor: I wish that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and his hon. Friend the Member for Craigton had made that point when the 1969 Measure was going through the House. The hon. Member for Rutherglen is conscientious, but it is blatant hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Craigton to have allowed the 1969 Measure to go through, to see his tenants have their rents increased as a direct result, and then give the impression that the increase is the result of Tory Government legislation.
  I also make the point that the main change that is taking place in respect of elderly people is that instead of their having their rents increased to a fair rent level over a period of five years the Bill increases the rents over a period of three years, which will mean that the rents will rise faster and by greater amounts over three annual instalments instead of five.
  On the other hand, it should be appreciated that at the same time the Government are introducing what we pleaded with hon. Members opposite to introduce when they were in power and what they refused to introduce. At the time of the 1969 proceedings my hon. Friend pleaded for the introduction of a rent rebate scheme under which those with limited incomes would not have to bear a substantial increase in rents. The hon. Member for Rutherglen has said that fair rents are being determined at a level which may reach £6 per week. He will be aware that under the rebate scheme introduced by this Government only newly married couples with incomes of over £30 a week will pay the full increase.
  If the hon. Member considers what might be the average rent of a married couple with an income of £16 a week—£9·70 pension and £6·30 other income—he will see that under our arrangements, with the rent allowance scheme, only in a few cases will the increase exceed the amount proposed under the previous phasing arrangements, and that at the end of the day the tenants will be paying less. It is only fair that these things should be said when a clear attempt has been made to give the impression to these tenants that their rents are being increased because of a Tory Bill. Their rents are being increased rather more speedily

  331
  under this Conservative Government, but only to the same figure as was fixed before, and, in addition, we are bringing in for the first time a rebate scheme to protect tenants who need protection under this legislation.
  It is only right to tell my right hon. Friend that, considering the wording of the Amendment, there is real merit in providing that the annual increase for tenants should be fixed at a maximum figure. The Amendment's figure of £39 a year seems not unreasonable.
  Mr. Millan: The hon. Member, as usual, is on everybody's side at the same time.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member is being quite unfair, especially considering the speech that he has just made, which was both misleading and hypocritical. My right hon. Friend is aware from the approaches that I have made to him and from private representations that it is very difficult to justify, in logic, an increase in the rents of corporation houses limited to an average of 50p per week when, at the same time, no upper limit is being imposed in respect of the tenants of private houses. It would seem only fair that if we provide, on the one hand, that the tenants of corporation houses shall have their rents increased by only 50p per week, on average—or a maximum of 75p per week—we should introduce similar arrangements in respect of tenants of private houses.
  From what I have said to my right hon. Friend today and what I have said in Committee it will be clear that I feel strongly about this question. There is a case for saying that people living in private houses at rents which are accepted to be very low should have, apart from the benefits available under the rebate scheme, a maximum figure per annual increase fixed for them. It is true that those who are on very low incomes will get the advantage of the rebate scheme but those on high incomes will find that because of the extent of the increase permitted over the three-year period under the new legislation they will have to make a rather rapid adjustment to their standard of living.
  There is some merit in saying that for WHI houses, and, indeed, for all private
  332
  houses, a maximum annual figure should be fixed. That is why, unless we can have a very good Government answer, despite what I have said about the case made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton, which rather disgusted me, my inclination will be to vote for the new Clause.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: In any competition for hypocrisy the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) would come first. There is no doubt about that. We have had a number of smokescreens put up in his argument. I must be quick, because of the guillotine, in trying to get these points over, since the hon. Member referred to me and various correspondence we have had about the Western Heritable Investment Company.
  The hon. Gentleman's final plea was strictly speaking not really connected with the Clause, although it is related to it. It could be applied to the whole Bill. If he sustained it with any conviction he would have tabled a series of Amendments in Committee to justify the application of that principle and he would have found a ready response from this side of the Committee. That principle of limiting increases was applied by us when in government in the Acts to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He has a very bad memory if he does not remember. Does he not remember the prices and incomes legislation in the last Parliament which restricted increases in rent all round? There was no attempt in Committee or on Report by the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends to propound this principle with sincerity. That is humbug number one.
  I admit that these houses, coming up in the sequence of time that they did, could not have been embraced in the 1969 Act. If we had had wise people in the Department telling us that we would have had the same problems with houses going out of decontrol—literally decontrol, not 1957 Act decontrol, but 1924 Act decontrol—perhaps we would have included them in that Act. Everyone cannot be wise all the time and keep up to date on all matters. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had been so keenly aware of this problem which was to emerge in 1969–70 why did they not make some representations to the Department then? [Interruption.] They did not. The hon.

  333
  Gentleman started his correspondence and I would like him to publish not just that one letter but all of it, not just the April letter but the June letter which said to the tenants, as I said to them orally, that they should go and present evidence to the Francis Committee. When we passed the 1969 Act one of our pledges was that there would be a commitee of investigation and as a consequence there would be new legislation.
  In the 1969 Act we made it a principle that tenants' money would not be used against the tenant to pay the landlords' rent. That was in the Statute and it was a big principle, changing from the 1965 Act to the 1969 Act. The Western Heritable Investment Company is a highly exceptional circumstance in Scotland; I do not know whether there is another example in the United Kingdom. It posed to the Francis Committee and to the next Government, the present Government, this simple question: "If you put in Exchequer money, taxpayers' money, should the landlord get the benefit of it?" It seems illogical, having passed a Statute which said that the landlord should not get the benefit of that money, not to say that public investment would not be allowed to count for the assessment of the rent. That can be written into the Statute.
  That is exactly where we are at the moment. If a Labour Government had been elected we would have had the Francis Committee as it stands. We would have taken an entirely different attitude from the Secretary of State. He dismissed it; he never even referred to the evidence, he never sought to argue or justify it or to rebut the principle I have tried to enunciate. There was no attempt by the right hon. Gentleman—and, even worse, no attempt by the hon. Gentleman—to champion this principle which seems to me an eminently sensible thing to do. There is surely no doctrinaire battle about this. This is taxpayers' money. Surely the hon. Gentleman, in defence of the public purse, never mind his tenants, would not allow this principle to stand. No, he makes the usual smokescreens and confuses us about who did what, when, where and why.
  7.45 p.m.
  It is the usual nonsense that we get from the hon. Gentleman when he is trying to evade a simple matter of principle.
  334
  It was a straight matter of principle. This Bill or some other Bill in this Parliament ought to face up to the question of whether landlords should be allowed to charge rents based on a considerable investment of thousands of pounds of tenants' money. Even apart from the money, the principle demands a fair answer. If this new Clause is not the answer there must be something else.
  We are being offered absolutely nothing by the Government who have turned down the new Clause and will recognise no substitute. They will do all the terrible things that the hon. Member for Cathcart has been complaining about, both under the Labour Government and now. He has no alibis left. The "Little Emperor" is naked before all the people of Cathcart and unless the Government adopt this new Clause or some other method he stands there, scandalously bare. I would suggest, for the sake of decency if not of obscenity, that something should be done quickly about this. The new Clause represents an issue of principle and is not a party matter. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) will seek to reply to what I have said and no doubt will have to recognise that this is a point which merits a reply.
  Mr. Galbraith: Every speaker opposite has referred to me, and, although I do not intend to speak for long because of the guillotine, I would like to tell the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) that I am not the patron saint of the Glasgow factors or the patron saint of anyone. It would be a foolish person who chose anyone with the name of "Thomas" for his patron saint, because he was a doubter, and I certainly doubted a lot of what the hon. Member for Rutherglen said, and particularly the novel theory of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who seemed to be suggesting that there should be some retrospective element and that because landlords had had low rents they were now to get especially high rents. If that was not what he was suggesting there is no reason, now that the subsidy period of 40 years is over, why these houses should not be treated in the same way as other houses and be subjected to the fair rent legislation.
  I hope that the party opposite, now it is in opposition, will not retreat from the

  335
  very courageous stand it took. I notice that the right hon. Member for Kil-marnock (Mr. Ross) has been keeping unusually quiet. I hope this means that he dissociates himself from his hon. Friends the Members for Craigton and Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). If, as the hon. Member for Greenock suggested, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), was dancing on a tight rope, he too was dancing on an equally tight rope. The Labour Party introduced the fair rent legislation and all that my right hon. Friend is saying is that this should apply to those houses now that the 40-year period is over. That is right and just, and I accept it.
  Mr. Ross: I have been keeping unusually quiet because the time is now eleven minutes to eight o'clock, and at eight o'clock the guillotine falls. Between now and eight o'clock we are supposed to cover 70 Amendments. The longest speeches today have come from hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Galbraith: I took two minutes.
  Mr. Ross: I do not consider the hon. Gentleman's effort a speech at all.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) dealt with the past, forgetting that here is a new Clause which would give considerable justice and relief to those people whose case he has been putting. He never put that case during the proceedings on the 1969 Act.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: That is untrue. I certainly did.
  Mr. Ross:If the hon. Gentleman really means what he has been saying all these months, he should join us in the Lobby in voting for new Clause 6.
  It is not my intention to delay the proceedings very much further. Hon. Members should appreciate that no one can claim any piece of legislation to be perfect. This Bill did not go into Committee perfect. The Government themselves had to put down 100 Amendments and about three new Clauses to it in Committee.
  There is no doubt that, following the Francis Committee's Report, we would have taken action in relation to the position of these houses. We would also
  336
  have taken action on other aspects of the report, not least on the question of furnished flats. All these things should have been taken in by the present Government but they have decided not to do so. The hon. Member for Cathcart will no longer be able to complain about what happened under the Labour legislation of 1969. There is no doubt about what we intended in respect of this sort of thing.
  The hon. Member forgot to mention that the 1924 Act was also a Labour Government Act—the celebrated Wheatley Act, which gave the real impetus towards the provision of houses for the working class in Scotland, together with the provisions for finance which are equally being wiped out with other, later financial provisions. The hon. Gentleman should study that Act, how rents were controlled and how the local authorities had to have regard to fair rents in fixing rents. If he does so, he will appreciate the fairness of what we are suggesting. I hope the House will support new Clause 6.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will briefly reply to several points made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).The first concerns the problem arising in the late 1960s and the 1970s. This is the period when the first houses completed started to reach the 40-year period. Naturally the process has been increasing. The hon. Member for Craigton chose the date of June,1970, for his argument presumably because there was then the change of Government. He argued that the rents of these houses had been going up since then. I pointed out that this was being done under legislation passed by the Labour Government and it had nothing to do with us. On the hon. Gentleman's own admission, no provision was made in the Labour Government's 1969 Act to exclude this category of houses from the fair rents system. On his own admission also—and I found it difficult to follow this part of his argument—that legislation was passed by the Labour Government in a way which meant that it had no effect on the raising of rents until after they had left office. There can hardly be anything more cynical or diabolically calculated than that.
  All this was done by the Labour Government without any provision for rent allowances for tenants. Whether there

  337
  was anything intentional in it I do not know. I do not myself believe that the last Government did it intentionally so as to leave the situation as a kind of depth charge for us. One thing is certain: some of the Opposition's supporters are not above giving the impression that rent rises since June, 1970, are in some way the result of non-existent legislation by the present Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) pointed out that this was deceiving the public.
  The houses we are considering under new Clause 6 are increasingly coming out of the 40-year period of subsidy and they fall, under previous legislation, to be dealt with under the fair rent system like other houses of the same kind. The present Government believe, as the last Government did, that this is something which should happen.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 254.

  Division No. 201.]

  AYES

  [7.55 p.m

  Abse, Leo

  English, Michael

  Lyon. Alexander W. (York)

  Albu, Austen

  Evans, Fred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ewing, Henry

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McBride, Neil

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ashley, Jack

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Atkinson, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Barnes, Michael

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackintosh, John P

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Baxter, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marsden, F.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mason, Rt. Kn. Roy

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamling, William

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Roy

  Milne, Edward

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Cant, R. B.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moyle, Roland

  Carmichael, Neil

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Murray, Ronald King

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oram, Bert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Corbet. Mrs. Freda

  Janner, Greville

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Padley, Waiter

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Paget, R. T.

  Cronin, John

  John, Brynmor

  Palmer, Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kelley, Richard

  Prescott, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Lambie, David

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lamborn, Harry

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lamond, James

  Probert, Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Lawson, George

  Rankin, John

  Doig, Peter

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Reed, D. (Sedgefleld)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Leonard, Dick

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Driberg, Tom

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Roper, John

  Ellis, Tom

  Rose, Paul B.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wallace, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Strang, Gavin

  Watkins, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Weitzman, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Swain, Thomas

  Wellbeloved, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Taverne, Dick

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

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

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

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitlock, William

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Sillars, James

  Tinn, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Silverman, Julius

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Urwin, T. W.

  Woof, Robert

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wainwright, Edwin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Steel, David

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

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Kitson, Timothy

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fidler, Michael

  Knox, David

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lambton, Lord

  Astor, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lamont, Norman

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lane, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Fortesue, Tim

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fowler, Norman

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Batstord, Brian

  Fox, Marcus

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Bell, Ronald

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Loveridge, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gardner, Edward

  Luce, R. N.

  Benyon, W.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Maddan, Martin

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Madel, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Bray, Ronald

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mather, Carol

  Brewis, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Mawby, Ray

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

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

  Buck, Antony

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Burden, F. A.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Moate, Roger

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Molyneaux, James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Havers, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monro, Hector

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hicks, Robert

  More, Jasper

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morrison, Charles

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Holland, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Clegg, Walter

  Hordern, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hornby, Richard

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Cooke, Robert

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Coombs, Derek

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Normanton, Tom

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, John

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Crouch, David

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Crowder. F. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Dean, Paul

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dixon, Piers

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Raison, Timothy

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Emery, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Redmond, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Farr, John

  Kirk, Peter

  340

  341

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Waddington, David

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Stokes, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rost, Peter

  Sutcliffe, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Tapsell, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Sharples, Richard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

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

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Simeons, Charles

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

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tilney, John

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Younger, Hn. George

  Soref, Harold

  Trew, Peter

  Speed, Keith

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Spence, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Mr. Hamish Gray and

  Sproat, Iain

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Michael Jopling.

  Stainton, Keith

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [11th April and this day], to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eight o'clock.

  THE RESIDUAL SUBSIDY
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 11,leave out from 'authority' to 'and' in line 13 and insert 'under any enactment'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  THE HOUSING EXPENDITURE SUBSIDY AND ASSOCIATED RATE FUND CONTRIBUTION.
  Amendments made: No. 5, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'the'.
  No. 6, in line 24, leave out 'such'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  THE HIGH COST SUBSIDY AND ASSOCIATED RATE FUND CONTRIBUTION
  Amendments made: No. 10, in page 7. line 3, after 'for', insert 'that year or'.
  No. 11, in line 22, at end insert:
  'or, as the case may be, that sum as varied by an order under subsection (7) below.'.
  No. 12, in line 24, after 'subsidy'. insert 'for any year'.
  No. 13, in line 30, at end insert:
  'together with an amount equal to the amount which would have been carried to the credit of the housing revenue account under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 4 to this Act for that year if no high cost subsidy had been payable to the authority for that year or any previous year.'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  THE HIGH COST SUBSIDY
  Amendments made: No. 18, in page 13, line 40, after 'for', insert 'that year or'.
  No. 19, in page 14, line 34, leave out from 'words' to end of line 36 and insert:
  'from "amount determined" to the end there shall be substituted the words "sum referred to in subsection (2)(a) above or, as the case may be, that sum as varied by an order under subsection (5A) below";'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 16, line 34, at end insert:
  'and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable'—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  RENT ALLOWANCES
  Amendment made: No. 21, in page 17, line 40, at end insert:
  (4A) A person is also a private tenant it he occupies a house let to him by the Crown

  343
  Estate Commissioners and his tenancy would be a protected tenancy but for section 4 of the Act of 1971.—[Mr. Cordon Campbell.]

  THE MODEL SCHEMES
  Amendments made: No. 22, in page 18, line 9, at end insert:
  'and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable'
  No. 23, in line 29, at end insert:
  'otherwise than under subsection (1) or (2) of section 18 of this Act'.
  No 24, in line 33, after 'period', insert:
  "otherwise than under subsection (1) or (2) of section 18 of this Act'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  INTERPRETATION OF PART II
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 22, line 15, leave out 'paragraph 17(5)' and insert:
  'sub-paragraphs (4A) and (5) of paragraph 17'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  COMPUTATION OF REBATES AND ALLOWANCES
  Amendments made: No. 28, in page 66, line 11, leave out'child undergoing training by any person' and insert 'person undergoing training'.
  No. 29, line 13, leave out 'the child' and insert 'he'.
  No. 30, in line 17, leave out ' "husband" '.
  No. 31, in line 20, leave out 'and subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 below'.
  No. 32, in line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  No. 33, in line 41, after first 'for', insert 'or collected in'.
  No. 35, in page 67, line 5, leave out from 'tenant' to end of line 11 and insert
  'and the authority have grounds for considering that in the special circumstances of the case it would be reasonable to make their calculations under this Schedule by reference to the income of that other person and not of the tenant, they may treat that other person as the
  344
  tenant and make such payments of rebate or allowance (if any) as ought to be made on that basis.
  (2) Where an authority exercise the power conferred on them by sub-paragraph (1) above, the tenant shall be treated as a non-dependant forthe purposes of this Schedule, but neither the spouse nor a dependent child of the person who is treated as the tenant shall be treated as a non-dependant for those purposes.
  5A. In the following provisions of this Schedule "tenant" includes a person treated as a tenant under paragraph 4 or 5 above or paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 below'.
  No. 36, in line 19, leave out '£9·50' and insert '£10·50'.
  No. 37, in line 20, leave out '£13·50' and insert '£14·75'.
  No. 38, in line 22, leave out '£13·50' and insert '£14·75'.
  No. 39, in line 23, leave out '£2·50' and insert '£2·75'.
  No. 40, in line 26, leave out '£10·75' and insert '£11·75'.
  No. 41, in line 27, leave out '£14·75' and insert '£16·00'.
  No. 42 in line 29, leave out '£14·75' and insert '£16·00'.
  No. 43, in line 30, leave out '£15·50' and insert '£16·75'.
  No. 44, in line 40, leave out from 'income' to end to line 42.
  No. 45, in page 68, line 4, at end insert:
  (cc) any sums payable under section 49 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 (financial assistance for education);.
  No. 49, in page 70, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
  (b) for each person in receipt of supplementary benefit … … … £0·70;.
  No. 51, in line 14, leave out '£1·00' and insert '£0·70'.
  No. 53, in line 16, leave out '£1·50' and insert '£0·70'.
  No. 56, in line 37, at beginning insert 'the whole or'.
  No. 58, in page 71, line 21, leave out from 'to' to 'to' in line 22 and insert:
  'consider whether they ought in all the circumstances to treat the rent as reduced by an appropriate amount, and if in their opinion they ought to treat it is reduced,'.
  No. 59, in line 37, leave out 'and 13' and insert '13, 14 and 16'.
  No. 60, in page 72, line 9, after 'disregarding', insert:
  'to the extent mentioned in paragraph 8(3) of this Schedule'.
  No. 61, in line 10, leave out from 'income' to end of line 12.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  REBATES AND ALLOWANCES: PROCEDURE
  Amendments made: No. 62, in page 72, line 36, after first 'for'. Insert 'or collected in'.
  No. 63, in page 73, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
  (4) In the following provisions of this Schedule 'tenant' includes, subject to paragraph 15(3C) below, a person treated as a tenant under this paragraph or paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 2 above.
  No. 64, in line 17, after "allowance', insert:
  'whether before or after their rebate scheme or allowance scheme comes into operation'.
  No. 65, in line 28, leave out 'tenant of his' and insert 'applicant of the'
  No. 66, in line 30, leave out 'in his and insert 'of'.
  No. 67, in line 32, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.
  No. 68, in line 43, leave out 'tenant and of any spouse of the tenant' and insert: 'applicant and of any spouse of his'.
  No. 69, in page 74, line 19, leave out 'and to paragraph 11(2) of this Schedule'.
  No. 70, in page 75, line 3, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.
  No. 71, in line 5, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.
  No. 72, in line 38, leave out paragraph 7.
  No.73, in line 45, at end insert:
  8A. It shall not be the duty of an authority to alter a rebate or allowance under paragraph 5, 6 or 8 above if the alteration would be equal to or less than 20 new pence.
  No. 74, in page 76, line 28, at end insert:
  Transitional
  10A. Where—
  (a) the whole or part of a person's rent under a tenancy was inet by a rebate for the rental period immediately preceding that in which the rebate scheme under this Act of the authority who granted him that rebate comes into operation; and
  (b) the terms on which the rebate was granted for that rental period are identical with those on which rebates are to be granted under the rebate scheme under this Act,
  the authority may treat him, for all the purposes of this Schedule or Schedule 2 to this Act, as if he were a person to whom they had granted under this Act a rebate for the first rental period after the rebate scheme under this Act came into operation.
  No. 75, in line 37, leave out sub paragraph (2).
  No. 76, in page 77, line 22, at end insert:
  'or in excess of the amount which is for the time being recoverable under Schedule 13 to the Act of 1971 or under Schedule 6 to this Act'.
  No. 77, in page 78, line 19, at end insert:
  'and if they alter or confirm it they shall notify the tenant in writing of their reasons for doing so'.—[Mr. Cordon Campbell.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 79, in page 78, line 21, at end insert—
  (3A) When an authority determine to treatas the tenant, in pursuance of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 above, a person who is not the tenant within the meaning of section 22 of this Act, it shall be their duty to notify of that determination both the person who will fall to be treated as the tenant as a result of the determination and the person who would have been considered eligible for a rebate or an allowance but for the determination.
  (3B) When an authority determine to treat as the tenant, in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 above or paragraph 1 of this Schedule, a person who is not the tenant or, as the case may be, not the sole tenant, within the meaning of section 22 of this Act, it shall be their duty to notify of that determination the person who will fall to be treated as the tenant as a result of it and to take such (if any) steps as they consider reasonable to notify of the determination the person or persons who would have been considered eligible for a rebate or an allowance but for the determination.
  (3C) The references to the tenant in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above shall accordingly be construed as including every person to whom sub-paragraph (3A) or (3B) above applies.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 228.

  Division No. 202.]

  AYES

  [8.8 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bell, Ronald

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Benyon, W.

  Astor, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Havers, Michael

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Body, Richard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Boscawen. Hn. Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hiley, Joseph

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bray, Ronald

  Holland, Philip

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

  Brewis, John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hordern, Peter

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Raison, Timothy

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk. N.)

  Redmond, Robert

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

  Buck, Antony

  Hunt, John

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  James, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rost, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Scott, Nicholas

  Clegg, Walter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sharples, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kilfedder, James

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Coombs, Derek

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Simeons, Charles

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Costain, A. P.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Crowder, F. P.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Soref, Harold

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Lord

  Spence, John

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Sproat, Iain

  Dean, Paul

  Lane, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dixon, Piers

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Stokes, John

  Eden, Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Luce, R. N.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Tapsell, Peter

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  McLaren, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Farr, John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Fidler, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Maddan, Martin

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Madel, David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marten, Neil

  Tilney, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maude, Angus

  Trew, Peter

  Fowler, Norman

  Mawby, Ray

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Fox, Marcus

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

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

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Gardner, Edward

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Waddington, David

  Gibson-Watt, David

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

  Walker-Smith. Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Moate, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Molyneaux, James

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Well, John (Maidstone)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery. Fergus

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Gower, Raymond

  More, Jasper

  Wilkinson, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Green, Alan

  Morrison, Charles

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mudd, David

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Murton, Occar

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gurden, Harold

  Neave, Airey

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Normanton, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Hamish Gray and

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Mr. Michael Jopling.

  348

  349

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Albu, Austen

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Oram, Bert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ashley, Jack

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Ashton, Joe

  Hamling, William

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth. Sutton)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Padley, Walter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hardy, Peter

  Paget, R. T.

  Barnes, Michael

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Baxter, William

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hilton, W. S.

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Horam, John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pentland, Norman

  Bishop, E. S.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Prescott, John

  Booth, Albert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hunter, Adam

  Probert, Arthur

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

  Rankin, John

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

  Janner, Greville

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

  John, Brynmor

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Buchan, Norman

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

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

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roper, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Lambie, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Lamond, James

  Shore,Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lawson, George

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Leonard, Dick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Sillars, James

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworlh, C.)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silverman, Julius

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cronin, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Steel, David

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

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dlckson

  Strang, Gavin

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  McBride, Neil

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Swain, Thomas

  Davis, Terry (romsgrove)

  McElhone, Frank

  Taverne, Dick

  Deakins, Eric

  McGuire, Michael

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

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Dempsay, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Dormand, J. D.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Torney, Tom

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Driberg, Tom

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

  Varley, Eric G.

  Eadie, Alex

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Marsden, F.

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Marshall. Dr. Edmund

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ellis, Tom

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wallace, George

  English, Michael

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Watkins, David

  Evans, Fred

  Meacher, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Ewing, Harry

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mendelson, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Foot, Michael

  Millan, Bruce

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Ford, Ben

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Whitlock, William

  Forrester, John

  Milne, Edward

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Woof, Robert

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Murray, Ronald King

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 80, in page 78, line 33, leave out' are or have been in receipt of supplementary' and insert:
  350
  'may be entitled to receive supplementary benefit or are or have been in receipt of such'.
  No. 81, in line 34, after 'been', insert 'or may be'.
  No. 82, in line 36, leave out 'are or have been in receipt of supplementary' and insert:
  'may be entitled to receive supplementary benefit or are or have been in receipt of such.'
  No. 83, in page 79, line 31, leave out 'make' and insert 'grant'.
  No. 84, in line 33, leave out 'make, or retain from making' and insert: 'grant, or refrain from granting'.
  No. 85, in line 47, at end insert:
  (4A) Without prejudice to paragraph 16 above, the Secretary of State may give directions to authorities in general or any individual authority or description of authority requiring them in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the direction to grant a rebate or allowance greater than, or less than, the amount required by or under their scheme, or to grant or refrain from granting, a rebate or allowance where the provisions of the scheme provide otherwise, and to pay to the Secretary of State such amount, to be estimated in such manner as may be so specified, as reflects any liability to give relief to the authority's tenants which is transferred in accordance with the directions from the authority to the Secretary of State.
  No. 86, in line 50, leave out from 'amount' to 'above' in line 2 on page 80 and insert:
  'which in the opinion of the Secretary of State represents the rebates or allowances which would have been granted but for any arrangements under sub-paragraph (4) or directions under sub-paragraph (4A)'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT
  Mr. Peter Doig: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 82, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 43.
  I propose here to delete the words
  "the arrears of rent which have been written off in that year as irrecoverable"
  I wish to take this course because such a provision has nothing to do with the housing revenue account, bearing in mind that this account's deficit will determine the amount of rent that council tenants will have to pay.
  It must be borne in mind that this is a variable item. In some years, such as this one of very high unemployment, there can be large amounts of rent arrears. Officials or other members of the local authority may decide to write off as unlikely to be recovered many of
  352
  these sums at the end of the year. First we have debts that accumulate as a result of unpaid rents. Then it is at the discretion of the elected members of the local authority whether they should be written off.
  Some officials feel that debts should be written off if in their view they are unlikely to be revovered. Others take the view that the debts should be left in abeyance for a number of years and every possible attempt made to recover the money. The sum therefore fluctuates from year to year and the individuals who decide whether or when to write them off also vary.
  Elected councillors often act on the advice of officials of the corporation. An official may decide to hold on to debts for a number of years, but he may retire and the official taking his place may decide to clear the books of all old debts and start afresh. A substantial sum can be written off in this way and if this sum is to increase the housing revenue deficit in any one year, because the housing revenue account must balance under this legislation, larger rent increases will have to take place. In other words there will be rent increases which would not otherwise occur.
  It sometimes happens—this happens in my constituency—that a number of houses remain unlet for some time. This uncollected money could increase the housing revenue deficit considerably, which makes all the more reason for deleting this provision when calculating the housing revenue account. The Minister can best remove this anomaly by accepting the Amendment and so prevent tenants from suffering unnecessary rent increases.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the problem which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. It exercises the minds of local authorities from time to time, but I do not entirely agree with his idea of the best way of dealing with it.
  Paragraph (2)(d) of the Schedule provides that written-off arrears of rent and income lost as a result of unlet property should be treated as an item of expenditure on the housing revenue account. We consider that these costs are legitimately part and parcel of a local authority's costs of managing its housing stock and should therefore be borne in the normal

  353
  way on the housing revenue account, which is where all the normal costs of managing the stock of houses that the local authority holds are carried. What the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is suggesting would be a change not merely in the Bill but also in current practice, where this is a normal charge on the housing revenue account.
  There are, however, two other factors which the hon. Gentleman might like to bear in mind which will be changed by the Bill and which I believe make a stronger case for leaving the provision as it is. The first is that having a universal national rent rebate scheme will, by protecting tenants more comprehensively over the country as a whole, generally speaking make it less likely to have arrears of rents as a result of people being unable to pay. This will never be eliminated. I merely say that it will be less likely than before. That is one factor which leads one to suggest that the present system of carrying this on the housing revenue account is reasonable.
  The second new factor is that as the costs of these arrears of rent or "voids", as they are known, are borne on the housing revenue account as part of the normal management costs of managing the authority's stock of houses, they will be eligible for housing expenditure subsidy. Thus, to the extent that an authority may have a higher number of arrears of rents or empty houses than it would like to have, it will increase the increase of expenses on the housing revenue account, which will tend to raise its costs in that year compared with the previous year over the threshold, and this will bring it into the housing expenditure subsidy.
  Therefore, whereas at present the cost of voids is borne entirely on the housing revenue account and, in so far as that is passed on as a deficit to the rate fund, entirely by the ratepayers, in future it will at least for the first time be subsidised to some extent, assuming that the authority concerned qualifies for housing expenditure subsidy.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that at present irrecoverable arrears of rent are borne not only by the tenant but by the tenant plus the ratepayer but that under the new system, as the tenant must meet the whole cost
  354
  for the year, rent arrears will become fully borne by the rent payer, the tenant? Is that really fair?
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: I see the point the hon. Gentleman is making but it is not quite correct as he puts it. The present position is that with the cost of this landing as it does on the housing revenue account, one can argue that it falls on the other tenants, because their rents have to be geared to some extent at any rate to correspond to the burdens on the housing revenue account; but one can also argue that in so far as all housing revenue accounts are supported by the rates, the cost falls on ratepayers. It all depends on the portion to which one assigns it.
  But we can say this about the present system. All these costs to which we are referring are borne by the inhabitants of the local authority, either ratepayers or rent payers, and in some cases both. In future that will not be so because, for the first time, at least some of the cost will be subsidised by the Government, when expenditure rises by over £6 per house in one year compared with the previous year.
  With respect to the hon. Member for Dundee, West, I believe that the right way would be to leave the costs of voids as they have always been, a charge on the housing revenue account. We should also bear in mind that the rent rebate scheme will make it less likely for needy tenants to fall into arrears of rent and that, for the first time, we have subsidisation by the Government paying some part of the cost of voids.
  Mr. Eadie: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument about what the Government are doing. On the rent rebate scheme, 25 per cent. is being met by the general body of ratepayers. But the hon. Gentleman has the figures available and he should confess that about £6½ million will have to be met by ratepayers, a sum which was previously met by the Exchequer in payments to people receiving supplementary pensions. That £6½million is taken from the general ratepayer. How can the hon. Gentleman talk about this as a gift from the Exchequer when that sum is being taken from ratepayers and is a sum that they did not pay previously?
  Mr. Younger:Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in that particular point. I could also add another factor which points in the opposite direction but which is again not strictly relevant, and that is that at present the entire cost of rent rebates is borne by local authority ratepayers or tenants. In future the Government will pay at least 75 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that 25 per cent. is being carried by ratepayers. That is true and it is a valid point, but it is not the point being argued here, which is that the cost of voids and rent arrears should be transferred for the first time from the housing revenue account to the ratepayer directly. I am arguing that although I appreciate that argument, it is much better to leave it with the housing revenue account in view of the two factors I have outlined.
  Mr. Doig:Does the Minister recall that part of the Bill states that the housing revenue account has to be balanced as nearly as possible, neither too much nor too little, neither profit nor loss. He agreed with this earlier. Can he visualise a year in which a great many housing debts are written off? Presuming—though this is unlikely—that the Government can stabilise the cost of living, rent, and so on, he will be faced with a situation of raising rent one year because of this extraneous item but reducing it the following year once the extraneous item has disappeared.
  Mr. Younger:That could happen but it is a somewhat unreal example, as to have the effect described there would have to be no other factors involved. But in the very extraordinary situation that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, that is what could happen. In general, in almost all authorities there would be all sorts of other factors which would have this effect. If an authority faced an unusually high amount of rent arrears, for all sorts of reasons, such as a high level of unemployment, it would fall as an increased burden on the housing revenue account, and for the first time, in so far as it represents an increase on the previous year's expenditure, it would be subsidisable through the housing expenditure subsidy. To that extent the local authority will get more help than it does now.
  Mr. Strang:The Under-Secretary said earlier that the number of those in arrear
  356
  is likely to be reduced because of the rent rebate scheme. He then accepted that the amount of arrears will vary from area to area because, for instance, of high unemployment in areas such as the West of Scotland, or Clydebank. For months we have hammered away in an attempt to convince the Government that it is nonsense to have a uniform rebate scheme. The Under-Secretary has implied that it would be sensible to give local authorities freedom to have a rent rebate scheme appropriate to the level of unemployment in their areas.
  Mr. Younger:That shows that one should not give examples in one's argument. The background to what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, namely, that the universal national rent rebate scheme will—which it does not do now, because there is not one—protect an area which suddenly comes into a high level of unemployment through no fault of its own. The universal national rent rebate scheme will protect tenants from the cost of the rebate falling on local authority people either as ratepayers or tenants. Now the major part of the cost will fall on the Government in the form of at least three-quarters of the cost of the rent rebate scheme.
  My example was probably not a good one. I amend it and say that, if a local authority area has an unusually high number of rent arrears for any particular reason in a year, it will in future have the protection of the rent rebate scheme; and in so far as it represents an increased cost on the housing revenue account the authority will have the help of the housing expenditure subsidy.
  I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reasons for tabling it.
  Mr. Dempsey: I follow the Minister's arguments, but to what extent has he assembled his facts accurately? Only a few weeks ago I received a long circular containing details of rent owed by tenants to Coatbridge Town Council. The total is the highest known in the history of the town, although a rent rebate scheme is in operation and even with supplementary payments on social security to those who are unfortunately unemployed. Unfortunately this state of affairs applies throughout local authorities in the West of Scotland.

  357
  If the tenant is to be asked to pay not only his own rent but, in addition, the annual Government subsidy and the annual rate burden, is it not unfair that he should be asked to pay the arrears burden of other people? The tenant does not do that now. It is wrong to say that when it is a charge on the housing account the tenant pays that, because at present the tenant gets the rate subsidy and the Government subsidy. When the Bill is enacted, there will be no rates contribution and no subsidy contribution. In addition, the tenant is to be asked to pay the irrecoverable rent arrears which have arisen as a result of defaulting tenants.
  Mr. Eadie: I hope my hon. Friend will not forget that, in addition, the ratepayers in Coatbridge, for example, must pay a proportion of the £6½ million that was previously met by the Exchequer.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am coming to the rateable contribution. The Minister has made great play of the fact that Government will be paying 75 per cent. and the local authority only 25 per cent. of the rent rebates cost. He has overlooked the fact that town and county councils will also bear the cost of administration of the rebate scheme. Nobody has yet been able to assess what the costs of administration will be. No town or county clerk to whom I have spoken has been able to hazard a guess. Thus local authorities will pay 25 per cent. of the cost plus the administrative cost, which will be considerable if the appropriate individuals are to take advantage of the scheme.
  Apart from the valid point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), wages, salaries and the cost of materials will continue to rise year after year. This will be another burden on the shoulders of ratepayers. In all the circumstances it is unfair that tenants who are about to pay rent plus Government subsidy plus rateable contribution on the house are to be asked to pay, in addition, the rents of defaulting tenants.
  Mr. Ross: This is a simple point and I am surprised that the Government are seized of it. The background to it is that there are a number of people who cannot and who do not pay their rents and whose rents must be written off as irrecoverable. The background to the
  358
  Bill is that rents are rising. There are about 1 million local authority houses in Scotland. By the end of the next financial year rents will have risen on average by about £50 a year. Therefore, an extra £50 million must be found somehow. The rents are going up by that amount. The chances are that if there are irrecoverable debts they will be very much greater.
  Despite what the hon. Gentleman says about the national rent rebate scheme, he is flying in the face of the facts. Most local authority houses in Scotland are already covered by rebate schemes; the figure is about 95 per cent. Some of them are even more generous than the Government's proposed scheme. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman used a very poor argument.
  Looking at the calculation of the rents, it is clear that the rent must cover the housing revenue account; it must make up any deficit year to year. The tenants who have been paying their rent will have responsibility, under the law, for making up annually the cost of the debts. That is basic to the Bill. Is it fair? The Minister says that people will be relieved to a certain extent simply because of the rebate scheme. Twenty-five per cent. of the rebate scheme, together with the whole of the administration costs, will be paid by the ratepayer. The present burden—and someone suggested that £6¼ million is borne by the taxpayer through the cost of the social services—will be transferred to the ratepayer.
  I wish that we had been able to deal with all these points, but we have been denied that opportunity. We have been working under a guillotine. We have not debated the question of the housing expenditure subsidy. It does not begin to work until after an expenditure of £6 per house or any other figure which the Secretary of State may decide to introduce later. I wish that we had been able to debate the rebate scheme, which will affect a tremendous number of people in Scotland. Not one of our Amendments on it has been called because of the guillotine.
  8.45 p.m.
  In view of the size of the rent increases, people will still be paying higher rents even with the rebate scheme. That applies equally to private tenants, although we are not concerned with them

  359
  in this debate. I am sure that the rent arrears which must be written off as irrecoverable will be greater, which means that the burden of the increase on those who live in local authority houses will be greater. This is basically unfair for the simple reason that housing, if we construe it as part of commercial enterprise of a local authority, is run for the whole community. If the burden is not to be borne by the taxpayer, it should be borne by the general body of ratepayers and not by a particular section.
  That is our basic point. I do not wish to labour it because we are pressed for time. I wished that we had time to vote, but we have not. If the Minister has a sudden access of wisdom and decides to accept our Amendment, which he could do without upsetting the apple cart of the Scottish Office—and, after what the Secretary of State said, he would not even notice it—I can assure him that it will be welcome on this side of the House and it will make an improvement in the Bill from the point of view of equity.
  Mr. Younger: With leave, may I say that I cannot change my view. Neither the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) nor the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is right in saying that the rent payer will have to carry not only the cost caused by people who do not pay their rent but the Government subsidy and that there will be no Government contribution. There will be a very considerable Government contribution. There will be a Government contribution on the housing expenditure subsidy for all local authorities whose costs increase by over £6 per house per year in the housing revenue account. Virtually all authorities will qualify for this subsidy. It is therefore not true to say that the rent payer will have to take over the Government contribution. We know from the Bill that the Government contribution will increase and, in particular, it will help ratepayers through the housing expenditure subsidy.
  I can appreciate the arguments, but I do not think it would be wise to change the procedure. It is much better to leave the matter as it always has been; namely, a charge on the housing revenue
  360
  account. I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

  RENTS TO BE CHARGED SO AS TO BALANCE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 25, line 37, leave out 'in' and insert:
  'as to be credited to the housing revenue account under'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris):With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the two following Amendments.
  Mr. Younger: These are drafting Amendments which are intended to clarify the intention of subsection (1) The subsection contains the general requirement that for each financial year standard rents should be charged at a level such that the income receivable from them, together with the other income to the housing revenue account, including subsidies, meets the expenditure on the new account without a rate fund contribution other than that associated with the new housing expenditure and high-cost subsidies.
  The reference to "specified" income and expenditure could, however, cause some confusion. The three Amendments are intended, therefore, to ensure that the reference to income and expenditure specified in Schedule 4 is restricted to such income and expenditure as is properly credited or debited to the housing revenue account.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 89, in page 25, line 40, after 'Schedule', insert 'and'.
  No. 90, in line 41, leave out 'in that Schedule' and insert:
  'as to be debited to that account under that Schedule and'.—[Mr. Younger.]

  PROVISIONS AS TO RENTS IN 1972–73 AND 1973–74
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No.

  361
  92, in page 26, line 29, leave out 'October 1972' and insert 'January 1973'.
  Would it be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time the following three Amendments:
  No. 93, in page 26, line 33, leave out '£24' and insert '£8'.
  No. 94, in page 26, line 39, leave out '£50' and insert '£34'.
  No. 95, in page 26, line 44, at end insert—
  (1A) The Secretary of State may at the request of a local authority or on his own initiative in respect of any or all local authorities empower them by order to treat the provisions of subsection (1) of this section—

  (a) as having effect with such modifications, exceptions and adaptations as may be specified in the order;

  (b) as not having effect.

  They are all related, and we could have one debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, I have no objection.
  Mr. Brown:This is a fairly important group of Amendments, but we will probably have to settle for one Division because of the shortage of time. I shall begin with a personal word to the Under-secretary. I do not say it in any sense of recrimination but I believe that we have been conned in the Business Committee in the timetable to which we have agreed. I will be generous and say that I do not think the Under-Secretary realised, any more than we did, what we were agreeing to.
  As it has worked out, the bulk of the Amendments were for discussion in the first part of the time allocated and this was totally inadequate. Obviously I cannot criticise Mr. Speaker but I have certainly learned something the hard way. I agreed to a business timetable without knowing the enormous number of Amendments that the Government were putting down or that the new Clauses would take up the whole of the afternoon to deal with the Government's failures in Committee. I admit my share of the guilt or responsibility in agreeing to the proposal but I hope that the Undersecretary will do likewise.
  Mr. Doig: He took advantage of it.
  Mr. Brown:I will let the matter go at that. I have recorded my share of the blame.
  362
  These Amendments are very important. Amendment No. 92, which would change the date of operation of the first increase from 1st October this year until 1st January, 1973, and the consequential Amendments would scale down the amounts that are required under the provisions of the Bill. I am quite sure that the Minister and all hon. Members have understood the point and therefore I must argue for the general principle of delay in bringing the Bill into operation.
  I would not presume to speak for Glasgow but the Amendments are linked to the general mood of many local authorities about the non-implementation of the Bill. They are absolutely right in saying that they intend doing nothing until the Bill becomes an Act. I do not believe that is an unreasonable attitude and I do not believe that even the Minister could fault them for it. The unfortunate consequence of it, however, is that local authorities will presumably be compelled by October at the latest, under the Bill as drafted, to find the additional £24 income and that is one of the things we are seeking to change in our Amendments.
  I should like the Under-Secretary to listen to some of the reasons why local authorities have adopted the attitude they have. I am sure he will recognise that the attitude in Glasgow is not unreasonable, especially in the light of the other resentments that have been built up against the Government and which I do not have the time to discuss now. Because of them it is not unreasonable for local authorities which feel strongly about their loss of power to express their determination not to anticipate the Bill becoming an Act of Parliament. When will it become an Act of Parliament? Not before July at the earliest, I suspect. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is a fair guess.
  Does the Minister understand the situation in a large local authority such as Glasgow? July is a holiday month. There are no meetings and very little is done. Staff are away and officials are extremely busy. It has been a regular annual source of complaint that, because of the arrangements for the financial year in local government, officials are tied up with accounts and estimates during the holiday month of July in

  363
  order to prepare for August and September. There is, therefore, a genuine difficulty of administration in a large local authority in getting down to the job of seeing how the Bill will operate.
  If a circular is issued, presumably it will go out in July. In addition to their normal pressure of business at this time of year, therefore, officials will have to work out the implications, arrange publicity and do all the work necessary for transferring from the existing rebate system to the Government's rebate system on 1st October. What is more, they will have to prepare for and organise the introduction of the rent allowance scheme in January. All in all, they will be very busy.
  On top of that, there is a general feeling that the Government are asking the big authorities to do too much too soon. Glasgow has 150,000 council houses. There are eight amenity groups—I support this idea—and in just one group there are 29 different sizes and types of house, while in the other seven there are 95 different sizes and types.
  The Minister knows what has happened in the past when a big authority—even Saltcoats can do it, and that is not a big authority—has gone through the motions of reviewing rents from time to time, in accordance with the classic phrase. When there are 150,000 council houses it is easy to put up schemes, for the committee to take them away for examination, to remit them back to officials for further consideration and so on. Anyone in democratic government, local or national, knows the opportunities for delay if one wants to find reasons for it. The present Government are as good at it as any other.
  There is, therefore, a mixture of genuine reasons and other opportunities which will lead to local authorities finding themselves in real difficulty by 1st October and still not being in a position to implement the Bill.
  What will the Minister do? I do not wish to anticipate Clause 71 and the default powers. I have to watch what I am saying here because I think that, if I had been a member of Glasgow Corporation, I should not have made any declarations about what I would do regarding implementation or non-
  364
  implementation. My position would have simply been "Until the Bill becomes an Act, I shall say nothing".
  There will be three months, or even less perhaps, to do all that the Bill requires, and I reckon that it will be impossible for a big authority to do justice to the job and keep within reason its efforts to ensure that no individual rent goes over the permitted maximum.
  9.0 p.m.
  There is a real difficulty here which such local authorities will have to face. The Minister might say that it is of their own choosing but that is unreasonable, bearing in mind the principle, which I think is right, that we do nothing until this Bill becomes an Act. It seems to place at least some obligation on the Minister to attempt to understand the dilemma of a local authority like Glasgow.
  The temptation, if the Act is to be adhered to in the time suggested, is to put on the £24 per house right across the board. I am sure that the Minister is with me. In other words, there will not be time to examine the 100-odd sizes and types of houses. To get the additional £24 per house, the additional income the Bill requires, though we are suggesting that should be amended, the temptation will be to slap on a straight increase of the same amount on every tenant. That would not be desirable. It is right, given the amenity groups and the various considerations that are to be taken into account, that local authorities should try and work out whether it is right or fair that the same increase should be put on to the tenants in Easter house, Castle milk or Chapeltown. Perhaps we should, as we have done in the past, put more on to some of the high amenity groups that everyone wants to get into.
  I am not exaggerating when I say that I know there are genuine and practical difficulties facing an authority like Glasgow. First, I want an indication from the Minister whether it is reasonable, if the Bill goes through in July, to send out a circular to local authorities saying, "Do this, that or the other." We are now dealing with the practicalities of the situation. When does the Minister expect the Bill to receive Royal Assent? How soon after that will he send out his circulars?

  365
  By 1st October such authorities will be in breach of the law. What will the Minister do? I know that this is related to Clause 71 but it is relevant to the Amendment which I have moved. We are entitled to get some kind of major concession. The Minister referred to the fact that I was successful in getting an Amendment accepted in Committee. I am not too confident that he will accept any of these Amendments. At least he had better realise—this is as near a threat as I shall get—that he is on a sticky wicket.
  I am not criticising my colleagues in the Glasgow Corporation. They have shown their hand. They have said in advance "We will not implement the Bill." There will be a lot of talking about that, but if I had been in charge of the political tactics of any of the big authorities I should have approached the matter like this: "What is the way we can get round this? What is the way in which we can challenge the Government?" Without taking the argument on to the nonsense about law and order, I would not reckon to expect a local authority of Glasgow's size with such a complex rent structure to do all this work and rent rebates and rent allowances in a matter of a few months at the busiest time of the year in local government. It is quite unreasonable.
  I hope the Minister recognises that there will be many of us in Glasgow who are genuinely arguing that the postponement of the date as suggested in the Amendment is not unreasonable. It is on these matters that I hope the Minister will at least give us an indication of some understanding of the problems facing particularly the big authorities.
  Mr. Baxter: When is my hon. Friend coming to the threat that he said he intended to make?
  Mr. Brown:The Under-Secretary has the message even if my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) will not read the reports of our debates in Standing Committee. I thought I had made the point well enough. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the ability of my hon. Friend to absorb my argument, but I am sure that Glasgow and the Under-Secretary have got the message.
  Mr. Strang: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). We have a rather interesting situation in Edinburgh. Prior to May, the local authority was hell bent on implementing the Bill at once. In fact, it wanted to introduce a similar scheme in May. But there was a change at the local elections, and I am pleased to say that the new town council, although not controlled by Labour, is sufficiently dominated by Labour to have been able to decide, although the decision has still to be ratified, to scrap the rent scheme with the increases which the previous council had intended. We all got a great deal of pleasure from that in Edinburgh not only because it will protect the tenants from hardship but because we see the implementation of policies in which we believe and because we can show those who say that voting at local elections does not matter what can be achieved.
  The Edinburgh City Labour Party and the Labour group on the town council have done precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Provan recommended. They propose not to implement the Bill until it has been passed and only then to decide on action. That leaves open the possibility of their telling the Government that if the Government are to give virtually no freedom about how councils fixrents and implement rebate schemes the Government can put in their own people and operate the scheme themselves.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the massive build-up of municipal officers required to operate this cumbersome and socially vindictive rebate scheme. There are two local authorities in my constituency. Edinburgh has some experience in this respect, having operated supplementary charges for working sons and daughters for a number of years and having adopted all sorts of dodges and methods to try to extract additional rent from council tenants.
  But the other authority, Musselburgh, is a more typical Scottish local authority and it has no experience of such rebate schemes. It will have to impose additional charges on working sons and daughters and even find out the incomes of sons or wives in the house in order to see whether they should be made tenants

  367
  so as to decide the rent to be paid. This means finding out whether the son or wife earns more than the present tenant.
  Mr. Younger indicated dissent.
  Mr. Strang: I am surprised that the Under-Secretary should shake his head. What else is the point of providing that a local authority may say to a son "You are earning more than your father, and we will therefore calculate the rent or rebate on the basis of your income"? It follows that the authority will have to find out whether anyone in the household is earning more than the present tenant. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what the point of this provision is and how it will be operated, unless it is to find out whether someone in the household is earning more than the current tenant.
  The main point is that we are trying to stave off these increases, or to modify them in the short term, because they impose real hardship on many people. We are living at a time of unprecedented price inflation. Every day we see prices rocketing. We know that they are rising at the rate of about 10 per cent, per year. They have been doing so for about 18 months, and there is no sign of this process abating. It is anonsense for the Government to talk about trying to contain inflation and to ask groups of workers to modify their wage demands while, at the same time, they are imposing these rent increases so soon and so sharply.
  No doubt the Minister will say "It is true that prices have risen and that rents are rising, but people's wages are rising, too." With this housing rent rebate scheme and some of the other means-tested benefits that have been introduced we are moving towards a situation—in some cases we have reached it, and the Bill will certainly exacerbate it—in which wage increases actually make their recipients worse off.
  The most recent figures that I have take into account the new national insurance contribution in October, 1972. Let us take the example of a man with three children, aged between 5 and 11, who was earning £18 a week and who receives an increase bringing his wage up to £22 a week. He loses £2·10 family income supplement; his national insurance contribution is increased by 19p; his rate rebate
  368
  falls by 41p; his rent is increased from 75p to £1·15; he loses his school meals exemption, and has to pay £1·80. He does not pay tax, and is exempt from health charges, but his loss of benefit is £5·90, making a net loss of £1·90. He is that much worse off than he was before. That is the most appalling and socially vindictive aspect of the Government s approach to this issue, and they have not faced that fact yet. That is why I support the Amendments.
  I hope that even at this late date the Government will show a little reasonableness. There is a limit to the degree to which people can be pushed, especially by somebody in the minority. The situation in Scotland, as everybody knows, is that the Government are decisively in the minority both in parliamentary seats and in the control of local authorities. No one says that the Labour Party in Scotland should be able to dictate Government policy, but if democracy means anything it means that a Government which are so much in the minority in a certain country should at least pay some attention to the views of the Opposition and not ride roughshod over them.
  We ask the Government, merely as a gesture, to pay some attention to the views of the Scottish people. We ask them not to impose this alien approach, and to accept the Amendments.
  Mr. Ewing: I support the Amendments. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on explaining in such graphic terms the effect of a £4 a week increase in a person's weekly wage; namely, a reduction of about £2 a week. That is a relevant point in our discussions. These Amendments give the Government the opportunity for a deathbed repentance—the opportunity to reduce the impact that the Bill will have upon rents in Scotland.
  I make no apology for attacking hon. Members opposite who earlier this afternoon spoke for 25 or 30 minutes but now, when we are discussing the level of municipal rents and the protection to people's standards of living, are not even present in the Chamber. The Secretary of State now has as much support from his back benches as his parly has in Scotland. It is a disgrace to the Government and an insult to the people of Scotland.

  369
  9.15 p.m.
  It ought also to be pointed out that the average standard rent in Scotland is £79. The Government seek through this Bill to impose, with effect from 1st October, an increase of a little more than 30 per cent. in one fell swoop. All the appeals for wage restraint, for heeding the public interest, for protecting the less well-off, the weaker sections of the community, will as a result fall on deaf ears. I appeal to the Government in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. We believe that we are the people representing the electorate in Scotland, not the Government. We are much closer to the electorate who will be affected by this Measure than any Scottish Tory Member.
  Mr. Ross: Where are they?
  Mr. Ewing: If my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was not stern enough in his warning, I amplify what he has said. I warn the Government that they are heading for serious trouble if they tread this path. I want the Under-Secretary to give serious thought to what is being said and to take the opportunity presented by these Amendments of reducing the impact of the Bill on the people of Scotland.
  Mr. James Sillars: I find Amendment No. 92 extremely attractive and I would have thought that the Government would find it equally attractive. It seeks to postpone a certain event from October, 1972, until January, 1973, which is a date coinciding with our projected entry to the European Community. I say "projected" because we are not there yet. The Government will remember, because they made a contribution to the European movement, that the workers of this country were promised £7 a week in their pay packet after entering the Common Market. It would be the Government backing their hunch if they decided to postpone the implementation of this from October, 1972, until January, 1973. What better guarantee is there to the workers that all that propaganda that poured out from the Government and from European movement sources was the truth and not a pack of lies, as many in the Labour Party said?
  With £7 a week extra in their pay packets the people I represent might be prepared to consider further increases in
  370
  rents from January, 1973, although by then with the price of beef and other things rising they may want to reconsider their attitude. The Minister should have no problem in bouncing up to the Despatch Box and telling us that Amendment No. 92 is quite acceptable.
  I am not entirely happy with the Amendments because I do not like any rent increases, but, given that we are not discussing the principle, simply trying to amend an exceptionally bad Bill, I will support the Amendments. May I suggest that the Government think seriously about accepting them? They would at least enable them to honour one promise, which was that they would reduce rent increases at a stroke. In a sense, coming at this time, they are sensible Amendments. The Government will have to be much more sensible in the next two years than they have been in the period between June, 1970, and now.
  The Prime Minister at Question Time this afternoon was decidedly shaky. [Interruption.]We accept that the Government Whip makes those sorts of noises; we appreciate that he has to do so to keep his job. The question of keeping his seat arises later. I thought the Prime Minister was decidedly shaky, and he had good reasons for being so because the Government are running into trouble. Even Conservative economists tell us that we are heading for a balance of payments problem within the next six to nine months. We are already facing massive price increases in certain basic commodities, and we shall continue with exceptionally high unemployment. No one knows better than the Under-secretary that Scottish unemployment will not fall below 100,000 this year or next year. He knows that as well as I do, but he is not in a position to admit it this evening.
  We shall face further price inflation because of our entry to the EEC. We have been given a clear indication that British steel will have to rise by about 15 per cent. That will give a tremendous impetus to inflation. In these circumstances the Government will need the co-operation of the working people to get themselves and the country out of the economic and social difficulties facing us. Since June, 1970, the Government have been waging war on the working people, industrially and socially. There is a clear

  371
  division now and it is civil war, with the kid gloves on, between the Government and the working people. This is entirely the Government's responsibility. The Bill is yet a further weapon to be used against the working people.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), being a schoolmaster, has done his sums extremely well and has come up with the information that within a short time Scottish tenants will have to produce £50 million more in rents. If this is not waging war on the working people, what is? The Government are waging war on the people from whom they will require co-operation. If they accept these Amendments they will to some extent alleviate the position. If they reject them—and I confidently expect the Government to recommend their supporters to reject them—they will have to be prepared to face the consequences. If they are ready to take £50 million out of the pockets of the Scottish working people they can expect those people and their representatives, both social and political, to use every means at their disposal to put that money back in their pockets through wage increases. There is no other way that the workers can do it.
  The Under-Secretary of State represents Ayr, which to some extent is a railway constituency. Is he prepared to tell the railwaymen that they must forgo the 14 per cent. increase while at the same time he is prepared to add 50p a week on their rents every year between now and 1975? Does he honestly think that men labouring under the financial constraints of the moment will be in a responsive mood to that sort of invitation from the Government? If the Government had any sense they would accept these Amendments, but they do not have sense, and by rejecting the Amendments they will be signing their own political death warrant at the next General Election.
  Mr. Buchan: I intend to be very brief. So far, this is my only contribution to the Bill. I want to emphasise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I do not think the Government should be under any misapprehension as to what they are doing to the people and how the people are reacting. My hon. Friend spoke of
  372
  a "declaration of war" on the workers. That is how the Government's action has been taken.
  Just as they are doing in industrial relations, the Government are using the law to provoke a conflict with the locally elected representatives of the people. They are deliberately picking a quarrel, known in advance. The Bill writes in the expectation of a conflict with the local authorities. This is being done against a rapidly rising cost inflation. We are almost at the stage when people will be asking themselves whether they can afford to pay their rent increase or buy a pound of meat. We are getting to the stage where we shall be paying £1 per lb for meat—and £1 is precisely the figure the Government are suggesting for a rent increase Perhaps they assume that the rate of inflation will be so great that the £50 per annum rent increase will not be seen.
  Yet rents are precisely where the Government have some control. Elsewhere, costs have gone market mad—not just Common Market mad but "market" mad with a small "m". If they are serious about fighting inflation, the biggest single thing they can do at a stroke is to accept these Amendments, which would immediately relieve the situation.
  If they continue on this highly dangerous course, as they are doing in other ways, they will, firstly, create a conflict between Government and people, consciously picking a fight between Government and people, which does no good to democracy, and, secondly, they will be bringing in the law when people resist. When we reach a situation in which the Government find themselves opposed by the local authority representatives, who are saying, as the majority are beginning to say, "We will resist this Bill", it is destructive not only of democracy but of the law itself. The law is brought into contempt in such a situation, which is challenging not only the nature of government but the law itself. We are on a very dangerous course.
  Apparently, the hon. Gentleman is ignorant of the proposals in the Bill allied to rents and rebates. Because of the increased rents, he is turning members of family against each other. This was precisely the worst aspect of the means test in the 1930s. Young sons and daughters had to leave home then in

  373
  order to protect their parents' wellbeing. That is what is happening under this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) quoted the example of the £18 to £22 increase in wages, leaving a man £1.50 less well off, involving the necessity for a rebate. Hundreds of thousands of families will need rebates. This is increasing the depth of the poverty trap.
  In our social welfare the Government have brought back the Speenhamland system of the eighteenth century; in agriculture they have brought back the Corn Laws of the nineteeth century; now they are bringing back the means test of the 1930s. The effect is to create a permanent pool of stagnant poverty.
  I ask the Government to consider three things: first the conflict between Government and people, between the Government and the elected representatives of the people; secondly, the law being brought into contempt; thirdly, the hardship being brought to families in the lower income groups. The hon. Gentleman has a means of solving these things at a stroke. One of my hon. Friends used the term "threat", which turned out to mean that the Minister was batting on a sticky wicket. Batsmen on a sticky wicket usually get run out. The Government are going to go out, and damn quick.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: This has really been like old times this evening. Here we are back to the same arguments which we had presented in Committee. Sometimes in Committee I was consoling myself with the thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee were a very nice bunch of chaps but probably not the best chaps at opposition, and that when we were on the Floor of the House we should hear from hon. Members, even on that side, who would understand the Bill and make some really worth while contributions to the debate. This has been a very amiable debate, but I have rarely heard such a marvellous load of concentrated balderdash as that to which we have been treated on this Bill this evening.
  In all sincerity I wonder whether some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have even read the Bill. I made some notes, quotations of things they said. That is one of the bad habits which the right
  374
  hon. Gentleman for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was always talking about in Committee—all this writing down of what is said by the other side. The right hon. Gentleman always refers to it as a bad habit of his. Perhaps it is a good habit when I do it—I do not know—but I made some notes of things said to see whether I might refer to them and what might be done about them.
  There was the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) who introduced us to the permanent pool of stagnant poverty.
  Mr. Buchan: I said a stagnant pool of permanent poverty.
  Mr. Younger: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. That transforms the entire meaning of the whole sentence! I really wonder what country he is living in and where he has been that he can make such over-stated remarks about the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West, who was in splendid form this evening, talked about setting family against family and going back to the days of the means test, and all that sort of stuff, and we had the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) talking in a similar vein. Really, what sort of country are they living in? What year are they living in? 1972? I wonder what on earth they have been doing all these past years if they think that this is the sort of country we are living in that measures of that sort could be produced by this Bill or any other Bill of today.
  Let us look at what is being done. I am not going to answer the general Second Reading debate speeches—
  Hon. Members: Why not?
  Mr. Younger: I think it would be wrong of me to answer Second Reading type speeches, but I will answer points made about the Amendments.
  Mr. Sillars: On a point of order. You have just heard the Under-Secretary say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he will not answer general Second Reading speeches on these Amendments. Is not that statement a reflection both on the Chair and on hon. Members on this side who were speaking directly relevantly to the Amendments? Are we not entitled to replies to the points we made?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I took the phrase "Second Reading speeches" as a figure of speech. When speeches are longer than sometimes one may wish them to be one is inclined to refer to them as Second Reading speeches, but I have heard nothing out of order.
  Mr. Younger:I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) very much. I did not mean to imply that I did not enjoy any of the speeches, but I just thought that they were irrelevant.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) made the least irrelevant of the speeches. He actually referred to the Amendments on two or three occasions. I heard him do so. He asked about the timetable for the Bill. It would be unwise for me to forecast now when Parliament will finally complete work on the Bill and ask Her Majesty to give it her Royal Assent. All I can say is that I am confident that the Bill will be passed in good time for all the necessary measures to be taken under the Bill, and I will do all I can to see that it is passed in good time so that everybody concerned can have proper time to do the necessary work involved by it.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned that local authorities are talking about not anticipating the Bill. I am not going to anticipate other debates we may have, even during this stage of the Bill, but I will say that of course it is the case that till a Bill is the law of this land we are, none of us, obliged to obey it. If a Bill to change the law is introduced on any subject I do not have to obey it till it is passed and becomes the law of the land. That does not mean that people cannot anticipate, in terms of preparations, in terms of thought and planning, what they will do on the supposition that the Bill will become law.
  During the discussions we have had with the local authority associations about this Bill we have been specifically asked on several occasions to introduce various measures under the Bill to make it easier for them to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Many specific points were put to us. One request, an obvious one, which was made to us was, that local authorities which made increases by 1st October last year, 1971, might count
  376
  them towards increases they will make after the Bill is law. We were asked to do that, and we have done it. They can use it if they want to, and many are doing so. This is a reasonable way to proceed, and it is helping local authorities to prepare, if they wish to do so, for the application of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that Edinburgh had changed its plans. I would not presume to comment on what Edinburgh plans to do. It is its area and not mine. Nor have matters been finally ratified. It is all for the Edinburgh Corporation to consider.
  Having said that, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has really considered what this change is likely to mean to his constituents, remembering that his view of the Bill is a very one-sided one. It is his view alone—
  Mr. Strang: By no means alone.
  Mr. Younger: —and, while no doubt he has managed to persuade some of his constituents to adopt his view, it may interest him to know that not all the people of Edinburgh take that view.
  Certain figures have been quoted in the Press. On the one hand we are told that the new arrangements will cause hardship. It appears, on the other, that 8,500 of Edinburgh's tenants will under the Bill and new arrangements find themselves paying less rent than before.
  Mr. Ross: Deal with the debate.
  Mr. Younger:I am replying to the points raised in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman is always telling me to stick to the point. That is what I am doing.
  Has the hon. Member told the 8,500 Edinburgh tenants who will be paying less rent that the new arrangements are bad for them? Does he want them to return to paying more rent? A large number of them will be paying less than £1 a week and a considerable number will be paying nothing at all.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I take it that they all live in South Edinburgh.
  Mr. Younger: Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has not made this point. I am sure that my hon.

  377
  Friend's constituents will be glad to hear this. These people must be worried about the change which is proposed in Edinburgh.
  The figures also tell us that 39,000 of Edinburgh's tenants will have to pay more rent, but that 10,000 of them are supplementary benefit recipients. The change is, therefore, immaterial to them because their rent will be paid in full by various means. This leaves the remaining 29,000, and about three-quarters of them will be paying increases of not more than 50p a week.
  Mr. Buchan: That is a lot.
  Mr. Younger: I have said repeatedly that in my view that is not an unreasonable increase to ask. In any event, it is fundamental to the Bill. We shall not agree about it, but that is the position.
  I simply ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East whether he is certain that all his constituents, some of whom will be paying no rent, will be thrilled to bits about the intention of the Edinburgh Corporation to go back on the proposals.
  The hon. Gentleman then talked about this business of son against father, father against son and family against family.
  Mr. Strang: I did not say that.
  Mr. Younger: The provisions in this context are specific and clear. I said in Committee that they would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. The Amendments which we passed earlier but which, unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss make it even clearer that they are to be used only exceptionally. I have said many times that if any local authority were, as a matter of practice, to use means-testing on anyone other than the householder, I would disapprove of it and do all I could to prevent it.
  The object of this proposal is not new. Most rent rebate schemes contain a provision whereby if a local authority thinks that abuse can take place from the point of view of a high earner taking advantage of the rent rebate scheme action can be taken. Is it fair that when two people are living alongside each other, in the same house, one of them should get a small rent rebate and have to struggle along with difficulty while the other, who
  378
  has perhaps someone in his family earning very much money, £40 to £50 a week or something like that, should perhaps get a rent rebate as well? Is it fair that those two people should have exactly the same help? Is that equity? I do not think so. It is most unfair. The people concerned consider it unfair. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) put it most eloquently in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman ought to address himself to this problem.
  Mr. Strang: I should like to answer many of the points made by the Minister but I confine myself to one question. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that under the Bill in certain circumstances a local authority will be charging an increased rent not on the basis of the normal tenant but on the basis of someone else, perhaps a son or a wife. In order to do that, it has to get the information. If everyone were asked to complete a form about this, that would at least be an objective and fair way of doing it.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is not so, is he saying that the authority will have to rely upon someone along the street saying "Look, that son is earning a phenomenal amount of money" and that the corporation will check that? Is he saying that there is a subjective way of doing this that will enable the local authority to get information on every household? The hon. Gentleman must face the issue. At every meeting at which I have explained this issue there has been an absolute uproar. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that if this is to happen, the authority must get the information. How will it get it?
  Mr. Younger: I know exactly why there has been an uproar. If I were a member of the audience and the hon. Member explained it to me in that way, I, too, would be in an uproar, because that is not the position. The hon. Gentle man knows that. There is a fall-back provision in the Bill that where there is an outstanding case of abuse the local authority—
  Mr. Strang: How does it find out?
  Mr. Younger:—will be able to take action. It is not expected or intended, and is totally misleading to suggest, that it will be necessary to take evidence from

  379
  families or to get anyone to fill in a form. One of the whole points of the rent rebate scheme and the way it is designed is that it will not be necessary to means-test the whole family. That is one of the things about which we are proud.
  I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree with me but he could at least ponder upon this. He is quite wrong in thinking that this will happen on any scale. It is only a fall-back and safeguard provision that can be used in cases of outstanding abuse. The support for that is not only on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Dundee, West was very much more eloquent than I am about it. He told us that people jolly well resent this inequity when it happens, and it is time that someone did something about it.
  Mr. Eadie:The hon. Gentleman is appearing to make a concession to the House. In the light of what he has said about the extraordinary circumstances, although it is specific in the Bill, may I take it that he will circularise every local authority in Scotland, new towns and the SSHA on precisely the point he has made, that the Clause is to be operated only in exceptional circumstances?
  Mr. Younger: Yes, certainly that will be included in the circulars that will be sent out when the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Strang:In the same circular, will the hon. Gentleman give local authorities guidance about how they are to locate the cases of abuse? He has not answered that question.
  Mr. Younger: I would not commit myself to doing that in the same circular. I can, however, undertake that local authorities will be clearly told how they should implement this and will get every possible advice on the lines of what I have been saying. I have said it in Committee, too, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will look that up as well.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Under-secretary fails to appreciate the concern which is felt about this. The major rebate schemes at present—either SSHA or Glasgow Corporation—have a standard allowance for an adult earning any amount. In other words, only if one wants to claim something is it necessary
  380
  to provide information about full earnings. Under the Minister's proposals, the gross earnings of every person—[Interuption.] The hon. Gentleman will need to be specific about this. How will he know whether a non-dependent adult is even working unless he asks the question or asks what wages he is receiving? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will not be such a question on the relevant form?
  Mr. Younger: Yes, I am saying that. The hon. Gentleman must have been in the audiences which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has been turning into uproar by his descriptions of what he thinks will happen. One of the whole points of the scheme, on which we have taken the recommendations of the Brownlie Report, is that it will not be necessary to means-test other members of the family, and there is to be a flat-rate deduction irrespective of their earnings. That is the most important part of the scheme. That is why there will not need to be a declaration of earnings by the son or daughter or anyone else living in the household. I hope that next time the hon. Member for Provan goes to a meeting addressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East he will take a pair of rose-tinted spectacles with him and listen very carefully indeed.
  The hon. Member for Stirling and Fal-kirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) said that there was no protection in the Bill for the lower paid. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever read the Bill through. The Bill is wholly designed to concentrate help on those who earn the smallest amounts of money. That is the whole purpose of the subsidies, as the hon. Gentleman should know by now.
  Mr. Ewing:The Under-Secretary has misquoted me. He should write everything down and then perhaps he would get it right. I did not say that. I said that the appeal to trade unionists to have regard to the lower paid would fall on deaf ears because of the need they had to protect themselves against the measures which were being inflicted on them by the Under-Secretary. Has he got that clear now before I sit down?
  Mr. Younger: It is about as clear as mud to me. Any trade unionist who is in the lower earning bracket is protected by the rent rebate scheme. If he is in the

  381
  higher earning bracket his increase is limited to 50p per week. If the hon. Gentleman can tell me how many of his friends who are trade unionists have had increases of less than 50p a week every year for the last 10 years, I should be interested to know who they are.
  I will leave aside the marvellous electoral survey of Scotland as seen by the hon. Members for South Ayrshire and for Renfrew, West. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has brought his dusty old speech out several times. It is a good hardy annual. It entertains us each time. However, he never gets time to finish it. Perhaps he has lost the last page of it, because that is the page where he goes on to explain that one of the reasons for the number of seats that this side of the House holds in Scotland is that the constituencies were so brilliantly gerrymandered before the last General Election that there are, therefore, deliberately by the hand of his own party less than there should be, as everyone well knows.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look for that last page of his speech because I am sure it will be a good one and that he will be able to put it across very well with his usual energy.
  Mr. Sillars: As we are moving into new electoral boundaries, what about a wager between the Under-Secretary and myself about the respective returns as between the Labour and Tory Parties?
  Mr. Younger: It would probably be out of order for hon. Members to bet across the Floor of the House. I should not like to have to make a personal statement tomorrow excusing myself, so I will resist the hon. Member's blandishments.
  We are discussing a group of Amendments, although from some of the points which have been made it might be wondered whether we have been discussing the Amendments. The points raised by the Amendments, some of which were covered in Committee, are, first, as to Amendment No. 92, to defer the date of the Bill coming into operation. I could not accept that. I accept that there are administrative difficulties to overcome. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Provan said in describing these and I will read his remarks carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Although undoubtedly there will be a great deal of work to be
  382
  done, I am certain that it can and will be done, as in the past similar changes have so often been carried out. I am certain that local authority officials will be able to cope with the work.
  There is also the point that a delay in the start of the Bill's operations would delay the benefits to be secured under the Bill. There are the ratepayers to be thought of as well. Are we to postpone the benefits to the ratepayers for three months? Is that a popular cry? Of course it is not. The ratepayers want the benefits that will arise under the Bill. They are waiting for the rate burden to be more than halved. I will not be party to delaying that for more than three months.
  Then on Amendment No. 93 there is the question of the attempt to reduce £24 to £8. The object of the Amendment is to make a difference in the effect on the ratepayers in the early months. This does not work altogether in the way that the proponents of the Amendment thought, because in some ways this will ensure that local authorities which increase their rents before 1st October will be given credit for so doing—that is the retrospective part of it—but the amounts required to be got in in the next year or two would again have the benefit of delay.
  There are two sets of people to consider here, ratepayers and rent payers. They are to some extent the same people, but they are to some extent not the same people. We have the benefits to both to consider as well as their problems which hon. Members opposite are always harping on.
  There is, finally, the suggestion in Amendment No. 95 that there should be power for the Secretary of State to exercise a wider measure of discretion. I do not think this will be necessary. I think that the provisions in the Bill are clear and workable. Local authorities concerned will get ample advice and help in implementing these in the normal way. When the full benefits are achieved, it will be simple for local authorities to see, in preparing to implement the Bill, whether they do it immediately or after a little heart-searching, as the hon. Member for Provan described, that it is much to the benefit of the ratepayers and it will give them as local authorities much scope for doing things which they have

  383
  not been able to do previously and which they will be very glad to be able to do now. I must ask the House to reject the Amendments.
  Mr. Ross:We have to hand it to the Minister. He has a wonderful tactic: seize something which is irrelevant, spend a great deal of time on it and spend as little time as possible on matters which are in order. I have seldom heard—and I hope that you are listening, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a speech more out of order than the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, strictly speaking, can say that. I do not think he means his words to have the effect which they have in my ears.
  Mr. Ross: I am saying that I have not heard a speech which was more out of order.
  The hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of the rent rebate scheme. He dealt with Amendment No. 35 which, although it is on the Notice Paper, was not debated because of the guillotine. We would have liked to vote on Amendment No. 35, but we had to give up the chance of doing so because of the time which would have been involved. The hon. Gentleman spent exactly four minutes dealing with the four Amendments under discussion. This is an insult to Parliament.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fairly young Minister and that this is his first Bill, but the habit which he is acquiring is bad.
  Mr. Younger rose—
  Mr. Ross: I cannot give way because we are working against time. The guillotine falls again at 11 o'clock and, whether we like it or not, the debate has been cut by virtue of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  I wish to deal as quickly as possible with the Amendments. We sought to save the Government from themselves. Many changes have taken place in Government policy since they first thought of the Bill and introduced their White Paper, but they have not departed in any way from their proposals for the timing of the Bill.
  384
  The first Amendment deals with timing—the imposition of the rent increases on or before 1st October, 1972. The increases must be imposed, and the calculation is related to the amount of money—£24 per house—for the whole of the year 1972–73. But for the local authorities the year 1972–73 starts in May. This Bill is not yet law, and we are in June. The Minister could not say when it will become law, nor can I. But I can tell him that it does not become law when it is passed by this House. According to the last Clause, it becomes law one month after its passing. Therefore, Glasgow and other cities will probably not be functioning as local legislative bodies when it becomes law
  I hope that the Minister appreciates the administrative difficulties, of which he made light. They will not be his. All that the Government do is introduce legislation and expect the local authorities to comply. When we suggest "Do not make it run from 1st October; make it 1st January" we are inviting the Government to be fair to the local authorities.
  I come to the question of the figure or £24. This concerns the dubious probity of the Government's proposals. The Bill is not yet law and is not likely to become law until, at the earliest, July or August. Between October this year and May next year—six or seven months—local authorities must, by law, collect £24 per house for the whole year, which means an increase of virtually £1 a week because it is concentrated into those months after the Bill becomes law.
  If the Minister thinks that that is fair and right, then he stands alone. This is why we sought to change the figures. I suggested in Committee that the Government were creating more difficulties for themselves by this proposal than by anything else in the Bill—and we do not agree with anything else in the Bill. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that if we had been in the position to do it we would have voted against the principle Clause by Clause. As I have said, we sought to save the Government from themselves and from the difficulties which they are creating for themselves and local authorities.
  10.0 p.m.
  How can any Government hope to appeal, on the one hand, for co-operation,

  385
  saying to the people "We are trying to hold down the price of this, that and the next", while, on the other, by their own decision they put up rents to the very maximum at a time when unemployment will again be rising?
  It is no good the Minister referring to the rent rebates. Does he know anything about ordinary Scots people and their attitude to means tests? If he is inclined to scoff at that, let him read the speech of the present Prime Minister delivered, I think, on Scottish television in September, 1969, when he said "What do you want—a means test society in a means test economy?". Yet now we have means test after means test with every piece of legislation they bring in, and the Government glory in it.
  Amendment No. 95—incidentally, my name heads the list against the others as well as this—is a sort of last ditch attempt at the last minute to give power to the Secretary of State, on his own initiative or at the request of a local authority with particular problems, to vary the provisions of the Clause.
  The words are impeccable. I think that there has been a transposition of one or two words, but anyone interested can find them on page 56 of the Bill. It is a power which the Government use when they take over responsibilities in respect of certain local authorities in default.
  The Secretary of State would be wise to have this power. He cannot foresee the timetable for the Bill. He cannot even foresee the difficulties he will run into. He would be far better advised to take this power to set aside or modify all the increases in the first two years. I am not a great one for giving powers to a Secretary of State of this sort, but I am prepared to entrust such a power to him so that he may, either on his own initiative or at the request of a local authority, do what is necessary.
  What is wrong with that? If the Secretary of State were a wise man, he would accept it. It commits him to nothing. If, on the other hand, he does not accept it—I gather from the Under-Secretary of State that he will not—it means that, come what may, he will steamroller these rent increases through on people who rejected him and his policies at the General Election and who rejected his party at the municipal elections.
  I think that we should now vote on Amendment No. 92, and then vote also on No. 95, if the Government have not changed their mind.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 259

  Division No. 203.]

  AYES

  [10.5 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Carmichael, Neil

  Eadie, Alex

  Albu, Austen

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Ellis, Tom

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  English, Michael

  Ashley, Jack

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Evans, Fred

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ewing, Harry

  Atkinson, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnes, Michael

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Foot, Michael

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ford Ben

  Baxter, William

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Forrester, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cronin, John

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Gilbert. Dr. John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bradley, Tom

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

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

  Deakins, Eric

  Griffiths. Will (Exchange)

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

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hamling, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Dempsey, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhll)

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

  Doig, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hattersley, Roy

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunn, James A.

  Heffer. Eric S.

  Horam, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Sandelson, Neville

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hunter, Adam

  Milne, Edward

  Sillars, James

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

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

  Silverman, Julius

  Janner, Greville

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  John, Brynmor

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Steel, David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Ogden, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  O'Malley, Brian

  Swain, Thomas

  Kelley, Richard

  Oram, Bert

  Taverne, Dick

  Kinnock, Neil

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Lambie, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Lamond, James

  Padley, Walter

  Tinn, James

  Latham, Arthur

  Paget, R. T.

  Torney, Tom

  Lawson, George

  Palmer, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Varley, Eric G.

  Leonard, Dick

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, George

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Loughlin, Charles

  Prescott, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Probert, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  McBride, Neil

  Rankin, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Woof, Robert

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Roper, John

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rose, Paul B.

  Marsden, F.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Buck, Antony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Burden, F. A.

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

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Emery, Peter

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eyre, Reginald

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Farr, John

  Astor, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fell, Anthony

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Awdry, Daniel

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fidler, Michael

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Batsford, Brian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Clegg, Walter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bell, Ronald

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cooke, Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Benyon, W.

  Coombs, Derek

  Fowler, Norman

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Gardner, Edward

  Blaker, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Body, Richard

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bray, Ronald

  Dean, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brewis, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gorst, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dixon, Piers

  Gower, Raymond

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Drayson, G. B.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Green, Alan

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Grylls, Michael

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  388

  389

  Gurden, Harold

  Maddan, Martin

  Sharples, Richard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Madel, David

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marten, Neil

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mather, Carol

  Simeons, Charles

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maude, Angus

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mawby, Ray

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soref, Harold

  Havers, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Speed, Keith

  Hawkins, Paul

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spence, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

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

  Sproat, Iain

  Heath, Rt. Hn Edward

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stainton, Keith

  Hicks, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hiley, Joseph

  Molyneaux, James

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Money, Ernie

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Holland, Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Monro, Hector

  Stokes, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hornby, Richard

  More, Jasper

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Morrison, Charles

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hunt, John

  Mudd, David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Murton, Oscar

  Temple, John M.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Neave, Airey

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  James, David

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)

  Jessel, Toby

  Normanton, Tom

  Tilney, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Jopling, Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Trew, Peter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Parkinson, Cecil

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Kilfedder, James

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Waddington, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Ward, Dame Irene

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Knox, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Lambton, Lord

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lamont, Norman

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wilkinson, John

  Lane, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Winterton. Nicholas

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Redmond, Robert

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Worsley, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Luce, R. N.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Younger, Hn. George

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Hamish Gray and

  McLaren, Martin

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. Marcus Fox.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 95, in page 26, line 44, at end insert:
  (1A) The Secretary of State may at the request of a local authority or on his own initiative in respect of any or all local authorities empower them by order to treat the provisions of subsection (1) of this section—
  (a) as having effect with such modifications, exceptions and adaptations as may be specified in the order;
  (b) as not having effect.—[Mr. Ross.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 262.

  Division No. 204.]

  AYES

  [10.12.p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bagier, Gordon A.T

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Albu, Austen

  Barnes, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Booth, Albert

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Baxter, William

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Bradley, Tom

  Ashley, Jack

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Ashton, Joe

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bishop, E.S

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

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cant, R. B.

  John, Brynmor

  Pentland, Norman

  Carmichael, Neil

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prescott, John

  Castle, Rt. Hon. Barbara

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rankin, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cronin, John

  Latham, Arthur

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

  Lawson, George

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

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roper, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leonard, Dick

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Deskins, Eric

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Doig, Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sillars, James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McBride, Neil

  Silverman, Julius

  Driberg, Tom

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dunn, James A.

  McElhone, Frank

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Eadie, Alex

  McGuire, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Steel, David

  Ellis, Tom

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  English, Michael

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Evans, Fred

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Strang, Gavin

  Ewing, Harry

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marks, Kenneth

  Swain, Thomas

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marsden, F.

  Taverne, Dick

  Foot, Michael

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

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

  Ford, Ben

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Forrester, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Eric G.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Milne, Edward

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

  Wallace, George

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Watkins, David

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hamilton, William (Fife. W.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hamling, William

  Moyle, Roland

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Gordon

  Whitlock, William

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Halloran. Michael

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Horam, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Woof, Robert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Padley, Walter

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paget, R. T.

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Alison. Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Body, Richard

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bell, Ronald

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Benyon, W.

  Bray, Ronald

  Astor, John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Brawis, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biffen, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Awdry, Daniel

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Blaker, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  392

  393

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Buck, Antony

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Burden, F. A.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

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

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hunt, John

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Raison, Timothy

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Churchill, W. S.

  James, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Clegg, Walter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cooke, Robert

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Simeons, Charles

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

  Knox, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dean, Paul

  Lambton, Lord

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Deedes, Rl. Hn. W. F.

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Lane, David

  Soref, Harold

  Drayson, G. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Spence, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Sproat, Iain

  Eden, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stainton, Keith

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Loveridge, John

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

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

  Luce, R. N.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Emery, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stokes, John

  Farr, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fell, Anthony

  McLaren, Martin

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fidler, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Finsberg. Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Madel, David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marten, Neil

  Temple, John M.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mather, Carol

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Fowler, Norman

  Maude, Angus

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

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

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tilney, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trew, Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Moate, Roger

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Molyneaux, James

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Money, Ernie

  Waddington, David

  Gorst, John

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Gower, Raymond

  Monro, Hector

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Warren, Kenneth

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  More, Jasper

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gummer, J Selwyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mudd, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Worsley, Marcus

  Havers, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hicks, Robert

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Mr. Hamish Gray and

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Marcus Fox.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Holland, Philip

  Question accordingly negatived.

  INCREASES IN RENT OF INDIVIDUAL HOUSES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 27, line 32, at end insert:
  'except that in subsection (1) the words from "plus" to the end shall be omitted'.
  This is a drafting Amendment and is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 30(1) made in Committee. Hon. Members will remember that Amendment No. 201 in Committee was necessary to prevent a conflict between the effects of Clause 29 and Clause 30 as they relate to the increases made in the period to 1st October, 1972.
  Mr. Ross: May I raise a simple point? Usually in drafting when it is said "the words from 'plus'" it means the words after "plus". I wonder whether this includes the word "plus" or whether that is to be left?
  Mr. Younger:This is to be read in the normal way. The word "plus" is in inverted commas.
  Mr. Ross: The word "plus" will remain?
  Mr. Younger indicated assent.
  Amendment agreed to.

  INCREASE IN AVERAGE RENT OF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION HOUSES.
  Mr. Lambie: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 27, line 39, at end add:
  'and where the average standard annual rent charged on 15th May 1972 is greater than the average standard annual rent for Scotland, no increase shall be applied'.
  The main aim of this Amendment is to allow the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new town corporations in Scotland to keep their rents at present levels until the rents of the other housing associations reach those levels. Earlier the Under-Secretary said that we
  396
  should take the trouble to read the Bill and then we would understand it. I met the Secretary of State with a deputation of Members representing the new towns and I know from that meeting that he has not read the Bill and does not understand it. He told us that the main aim of the Bill was to be fair to all Scottish tenants. He said that the main aim, before there was a review in 1975–6, was to even out the inequalities in rent levels in Scotland.
  Those of us who have read the Bill and understand it know that in 1975–76 there will still be a large number of inequalities in rent levels in Scotland and we shall still be able to publish a league table of rents. Unfortunately, the housing authorities that will be at the top of the league table in 1975–76 will be those in the new town corporations and the SSHA. This Amendment seeks to do what the Secretary of State says is the main aim of the Bill, to be fair to Scottish tenants. I ask him on behalf of the tenants of the SSHA and the corporations to accept this Amendment.
  Since half-past three today we have been discussing a series of Amendments. My righthon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that we had been dealing with 100 Government Amendments alone. The Government have not accepted any of our Amendments, but I hope they will accept this one because it is in line with their policy to be fair to all tenants. Tenants of the SSHA and the corporations wonder what the Government have got against them when they are dealing in such a way with the residual subsidy, the so-called "welshing" subsidy, and when they are cutting out all existing subsidies by a fixed ratio of £9 per house for this year and for every subsequent year by £10 a house.
  10.30 p.m.
  The tenants of the new towns and of the SSHA are asking why the Government are picking on them. This is because the Government are to withdraw the residual subsidy to them at double the rate—£18 per house this year and £20 per house every subsequent year. At present, the rents charged by these housing corporations are higher than any charged elsewhere in Scotland. Instead of the Government playing fair, they seem to delight in being vicious. They are

  397
  attacking all council tenants but reserving their greatest attack for tenants of the SSHA and the new town corporations.
  My argument can easily be appreciated if we look at average annual standard rents for each category of housing. In 1971, the average annual standard rent for all local authority houses was £79·29. The average of the SSHA was £105·5, or 30 per cent. above the average. In the new town corporations—Irvine, Livingston, Glenrothes, East Kilbride and Cumbernauld—the average was £139·96, or 75 per cent, above the average.
  In my own area, in Irvine, the average was over £180, or 135 per cent. above the average. The rents charged by the new town corporation in Irvine are nearly two and a half times those charged on average by every other local authority in Scotland. By these figures, even Tories should realise there is something unjust in the provisions of the Bill and be prepared to listen to the advice of the tenants of the new towns and of those areas where we have large numbers of SSHA houses.
  The Government's case is that in 1975–76, once the full implications of the Bill have been felt throughout Scotland, all these inequalities will have been evened out. That was the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman to the deputation. We were told "Do not worry, Mr. Lambie. You are being hard hit at the moment but later on, when all the other areas have had their rent increases, the rents throughout Scotland will be equal". That is what the right hon. Gentleman honestly believes because he does not understand the Bill.
  The true position is that in 1975–76, in Irvine new town, the average annual standard rent will be increased to £294. The neighbouring small burgh of Kil-winning is cheek by jowl with Pennyburn, Irvine. When Kilwinning has fulfilled all the requirements of the Bill, the average annual standard rent there will be only £130 a year, which is £58 less than that presently charged by the Irvine Corporation for its houses in Pennyburn. These figures are reflected in other small burghs and new towns throughout Scotland.
  In the equivalent Measure applying to England and Wales the Government have allowed local authorities in special cir-
  398
  cumstances to vary rent levels and increases. For example, under Section 68 of the English Act they must assess fair rents for all dwellings and reduce rents which are above the fair rent. Under Sections 64 and 65 a local authority may, if it considers that the present rent is at or near the fair rent level, make little or no increase.
  We want justice for new town tenants in Scotland, particularly when our rents are already affair rent levels in relation to comparable buildings in the area. In other words, new town and certain special housing association rents are now at fair rent levels.
  We are not asking for rents to be reduced. We are simply suggesting that new town corporations and special housing associations be allowed to have a rents standstill, holding rents at their present levels at least until the rents of other areas come up to those levels. There is nothing to prevent the Government accepting this proposal and at the same time retaining the fundamental basis of the Bill.
  I represent an urban new town in which the rents are some of the highest in Scotland and are comparable with the highest rents in local authorities generally in England and Wales. The tenants' association has recommended that its members withhold the increase, which shows that we are likely to have a conflict between new town tenants, development corporations and the Government. This will be an unnecessary conflict if the Government mean what they say about the Bill being fair to all tenants.
  Mr. Eadie:The powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was included in the submissions which we made to the Secretary of State at a private interview which he was kind enough to grant some of my hon. Friends, no doubt at great inconvenience to himself. We are anxious to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of giving consideration to the tenants of new towns. The Government's handling of the Bill from the point of view of these tenants has been, to say the least, ham-fisted.
  However democratic local authorities may be in their activities, how democratic are new town corporations in Scotland? I ask that question because in the decision

  399
  which they took there was no consultation with their tenants. It was dictatorship because the new town corporations in Scotland—we are entitled to know whether they took their decision at the behest of the Secretary of State—met and decided, without consulting the new town tenants, to impose rent increases in May rather than in October.
  We are talking about the new towns in relation to the Amendment. The new town corporations treated the people living in them very shoddily. They treated their Members of Parliament just as shoddily. The Secretary of State will know that I received an invitation, with a month's notice, from the new town corporation of Livingston. The corporation wanted to discuss with me the question of increasing rents. But the corporation changed its mind. Two days before the scheduled meeting I was asked to meet the corporation to discuss the rent levels, but I had arranged a meeting for that night with tenants of the new town, and I wished to meet them. So there was no question of consultation. The corporation ham-fistedly informed the tenants that the rents would be increased regardless.
  When considering rent levels and the way the matter will be treated under the Bill, one cannot but be puzzled when one finds that in new towns one gets resistance which one is not getting with local authorities. I do not know whether it is Government policy to try to encourage resistance and discontent among people. If the Government have not tried to do that, it is marvellous what they have done by not trying. In the whole approach to rent levels there is gross unfairness between local authority tenants. They cannot understand, for example, that although the tenants of new towns are paying a higher rent level, they will require to pay 25 per cent. of the rent allowances which will be given to people living in private property. They cannot understand why they should have to pay that in addition to having higher rent levels than obtain elsewhere.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State was present earlier but he may know that his hon. Friend the Under-secretary gave a specific promise that he would circularise tenants of local
  400
  authorities in relation to the non-dependant Clauses. I wonder whether the new town tenants and SSHA tenants will get the same circular and whether the corporations, which seem to be a law unto themselves, with no democratic content, will get the same circular from the Secretary of State or will be allowed to do what they like in relation to the tenants of new towns.
  This is a very important Amendment because it indicates the Government's general approach to new town rent levels. We have had agreement between the two parties that the new towns are to be economic growth points and that this is the way to deal with Scotland's economic problems. But it is a poor way to go about it if we invite people to an economic growth point and ask them to pay rents far in excess of those of neighbouring local authorities.
  The Amendment is reasonable. Since we all met the Secretary of State, as representatives of new towns, he has had ample opportunity to consider this matter. Logically there is a case for doing precisely what the Amendments suggests. I hope that the Secretary of State will support the Amendment.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: The Amendment is very reasonable. Surely it cannot fail to be impressed on the Secretary of State that the situation for which my hon. Friend is asking will apply in England and Wales. I do not see why a situation which applies in one part of the United Kingdom should not apply to Scotland as well. My hon. Friend has pointed out the anomalous position with regard to Scottish new towns.
  10.45 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said something which reminds me of what happened when, during the 1950s, I served on the planning committee of Glasgow City Council, later becoming the chairman of that committee. From 1954 to 1958 I had frequent meetings with the father of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who was then Minister of State, Scottish Office, and the then Chairman of the East Kilbride Development Corporation. It was obvious from the many discussions we had that the democratic set-up left much to be desired, to put it mildly.

  401
  I am not in favour of high rents. I am surprised that my hon. Friend even concedes that there should be an element of agreeing to the kind of high rents which are being imposed. The level at which rents are being imposed upon the people of Scotland is disgraceful.
  If rents must be increased, why must they be increased for people who are already paying such extravagantly high rents? I am amazed at the level of rents in the Scottish new towns. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that all workers earn relatively large sums of money. Many of those living and working in the Scottish new towns are not earning large sums. I wonder that some of them can pay the high level of rents that already applies in the new towns. I do not see why the Secretary of State should be stubborn about accepting an Amendment which would make the position in Scotland comparable with that in England and Wales.
  The new towns being developed in Scotland have one main purpose, which transcends all other purposes. It is to ensure that the cancerous slums of our industrial cities are demolished and way is made for people to move to decent housing conditions. How is it possible to attract people from slum areas so that slums can be demolished and the people moved to decent housing conditions when the Government impose upon the people rents which many of them will not be able to afford?
  I plead with the Secretary of State even at this stage to accept the Amendment, which unfortunately does not detract from his Bill. Would that the Amendment did something drastic to affect the Bill. It would at least make the position clear in relation to those in the new towns. If the Secretary of State is genuine and is not merely mouthing platitudes, if he wishes the people of Scotland to be decently housed, he should abandon the idea that it is only a matter of rents. It is houses we want built. I have told him that the Government's proposals do not build one extra house. He has not proved that they have built an extra house. If he is sincere in the view he has expressed so often—that he wishes to rehouse the people living in slums in Scotland's industrial cities—he should accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Ewing: I speak as a tenant of the Scottish Special Housing Association and as one who for the last 18 years has suffered from the inequality inflicted by the rent structure of the association. I am greatly concerned that built into the Bill is a clear provision for preserving the differential between local authority rents and association rents and local authority rents and new town development corporation rents. Our arguments in Committee, particularly on new town rents, were answered by the Under-Secretary in saying that people should be prepared to pay for being part of a new town. I do not accept that.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) in asking how a place like Glasgow can expect to spill from its population about 60,000 families into new towns. There will be no overspill agreements reached between local authorities and Glasgow Corporation because of the Bill, and yet it will be the purpose of new towns in future to take overspill families from places like Glasgow. It will be impossible for places like Glasgow to spill out 60,000 or 70,000 families into new towns and ask them to accept astronomical rents.
  My view of the SSHA has always been and still is—I do not see it changing—that it should be only a building authority. Half the problem could be solved quite easily by transferring the stock of association houses in local authorities to the local authorities concerned. In the local authority areas which I represent, if a person wants an association house he can have one within days. Association houses are empty in my constituency for week after week, not because they are two-apartment, three-apartment or four-apartment houses but because they are association houses and the rents are much higher than local authority houses, and they always will be as a result of the Bill.
  I wish to raise a point about the new town of Glenrothes. Myhon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is not present and I would be the last to presume to speak on his behalf, but I want to make the relevant point that it is astonishing that in 1972 Glenrothes new town development corporation is advertising houses not for letting or even for sale, but for occupation as holiday homes because it cannot get them occupied in any other way. It is true

  403
  that there is no industry in the area for people to go to and there is a large amount of unemployment, but the other side of the story is that the rents are so high that they frighten away prospective tenants.
  I support the Amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The effect of Clause 31, limiting rent increases made by new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association, is to place the tenants of development corporations and the Association on the same footing as the tenants of local authorities as regards maximum rent increases. The average standard rent of Association houses is about 25 per cent. above the present average standard rent of local authority housing, but the Association will be required to balance its account in the same way as local authorities, and after the first two or three years of operation of the new system of housing finance it is expected that this gap will be very largely closed.
  To compare new town housing with local authority housing is not comparing like with like, since the new town houses are in general much newer and situated in up-to-date environments of high amenity. Moreover the stock of houses in new towns includes a significant proportion—about 8 per cent.—of managerial-type houses.
  Another reason for the present higher rents is that all new town tenants in Scotland have had the protection of a comprehensive rebate scheme and this protection will be improved with the model rent rebate scheme provided for in the Bill. As an example of this nearly all Irvine Development Corporation tenants receiving a family income of £30 a week or less and having at least one child of school age will pay less rent in 1972–73 than in the previous year.
  Mr. Hugh McCartney: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Campbell: I will if I have time.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Secretary of State agree—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Malla-lieu): The right hon. Gentleman is not
  404
  giving way, so the hon. Member must sit down.
  Mr. Campbell: I must say this if I can. It is misleading to use the argument that because the average rent charged by new towns is higher than that charged by local authorities, the new town tenants are necessarily worse off. The simple reason for this difference is that the average stock of houses in new towns consists of new, good amenity houses. The rents charged by many local authorities for their new houses are very similar to the average rents charged in new towns. A more correct comparison is with the rent charged for new local authority houses. For example, in Edinburgh it is around £200 per annum and in Greenock about £160 to £180. The argument advanced by the Opposition did not challenge the validity of that comparison.
  Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Campbell: It would be unfair to tenants of new local authority housing if the tenants of new town houses were to enjoy a standstill period as the Amendment would provide while similar local authority rents were being increased under the Bill over the next few years. The Bill has been drafted to give broadly comparable treatment for all public sector tenants but an assurance can be given that as local authority rents increase the position of the new town rents will be kept under review with those of the local authorities.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Secretary of State agree that what he is saying now is contrary to what he said to the deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) when we met to discuss new town corporation and housing authority rents? When the question was posed, the right hon. Gentleman said that the policy in the Bill was to equalise rents and to eliminate the deficits in the housing revenue accounts. This would result in a situation in which new corporation rents would be far in excess of the local authority rents unless the Secretary of State continued to increase the rents of other local authorities. This was his statement to the deputation.
  Mr. Campbell: I am saying now what I said to the deputation. As regards the

  405
  SSHA the gap should largely close in two or three years' time. With new town corporations one must compare like with like. One must compare modern, new, high-quality houses in the new towns with similar houses held by local authorities.
  Mr. Ross: I want to pose one pertinent question. The new town of Irvine is the one new town in Scotland based on two existing towns—Kilwinning and Irvine. Both the existing towns have built very good new houses. Will the Secretary of State compare the rents of those houses in the burghs which are to be absorbed within the new town with the new town corporation houses? This is where the difficulty will arise.
  Mr. Campbell: I have done that. I have looked at some of the differences in Kilwinning and Irvine. The local authorities can pool the rents among their tenants. If, for instance, they should be charging £200 a house they can, if they wish, charge less to one and more to some other tenant. The effect of the Bill will be that local authorities will have to balance their housing accounts
  but to do that they may raise rents only within certain limits each year.
  The SSHA is on the same basis. The new town corporations start at a higher level of average rents because, on average, there is much higher quality housing in the new towns. They also will be limited in the average yearly increase, so that the gap will continue for a time, with the new town average being higher than the normal local authority average in Scotland. But new town corporation rents, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are determined in consultation with the Secretary of State, and this consultation will continue. In the years to come, as local authorities reach their—
  It being Eleven o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [11 th April and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244 Noes 271.

  Division No. 205.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Albu, Austen

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cronin, John

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Ashley, Jack

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

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hamling, William

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Baxter, William

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Deakins, Eric

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bennett, James(Glasgow,Bridgeton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hattersley, Roy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Horam, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Booth, Albert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Driberg, Tom

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  English, Michael

  Hunter, Adam

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, Fred

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

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

  Ewing, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cant, R. B.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  John, Brynmor

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Foot, Michael

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Ford, Ben

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Forrester, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Kaufman. Gerald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Kelley, Richard

  Kinnock, Neil

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silkln. Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Lambie, David

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Moyie, Roland

  Sillars, James

  Lamond, James

  Murray, Ronald King

  Silverman, Julius

  Latham, Arthur

  Oakes, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lawson, George

  Ogden, Eric

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leonard, Dick

  O'Malley, Brian

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Oram, Bert

  Steel, David

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Liplon, Marcus

  Padley, Walter

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Paget, R. T.

  Swain, Thomas

  Loughlin, Charles

  Palmer, Arthur

  Taverne, Dick

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  McBride, Neil

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tinn, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Pendry, Tom

  Torney, Tom

  McElhone, Frank

  Pentland, Norman

  Urwin, T. W.

  McGuire, Michael

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Valley, Eric G.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Prescott, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mackie, John

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Maciennan, Robert

  Probert, Arthur

  Wallace, George

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)

  Rankin, John

  Watkins, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Weitzman, David

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Marsden, F.

  Richard, Ivor

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Whitlock, William

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Roper, John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mendelson, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Woof, Robert

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Milne, Edward

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Mr. Ernest G Perry.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Astor, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fowler, Norman

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clegg, Walter

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

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fry, Peter

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooke, Robert

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Coombs, Derek

  Gardner, Edward

  Bell, Ronald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cordle, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Benyon, W.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Godber, Rt. Kn. J. B.

  Biffen, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Crouch, David

  Goodhew, Victor

  Blaker, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gorst, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Davles, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Gower, Raymond

  Body, Richard

  d'Avidgdor-Goldsmdi, Sir Henry

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

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

  Green, Alan

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dean, Paul

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dixon, Piers

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Bray, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Gurden, Harold

  Brewis, John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Eden, Sir John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

  Emery, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Antony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Havers, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Farr, John

  Hawkins, Paul

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hicks. Robert

  408

  409

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Maxwell-Hyslop,R.J

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Simeons, Charles

  Holland, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Holt, Miss Mary

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hordern, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Soref, Harold

  Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Molyneaux, James

  Speed, Keith

  Howe, Kn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Money, Ernie

  Spence, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Sproat, Iain

  Hunt, John

  Monro, Hector

  Stainton, Keith

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Iremonger, T. L.

  More, Jasper

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  James, David

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Morrison, Charles

  Stokes, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Mudd, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Murton, Oscar

  Sutcliffe, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tapsell, Pater

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Neave, Airey

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

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Normanton, Tom

  Temple, John M

  Kilfedder, James

  Nott, John

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Kimball, Marcus

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Owen, Idris (Slockport, N.)

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Tilney, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Kitson, Timothy

  Percival, Ian

  Trew, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Knox, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Turton, Rt. Hn Sir John

  Lambton, Lord

  Pink, R. Bonner

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Vaughan. Dr. Gerard

  Lane, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Waddington, David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Raison, Timothy

  Weils, John (Maidstone)

  Loveridge, John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Luce, R. N.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Redmond, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  McLaren, Martin

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodnutt, Mark

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Worsley, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Maddan, Martin

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Madel, David

  Rost, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mather, Carol

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Mr. Hamish Gray and

  Maude, Angus

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. Marcus Fox.

  Mawby, Ray

  Sharples, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the said Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
  Amendment made: No. 101, in page 27, line 39, at end add—
  (2) If high cast subsidy is payable to a development corporation or the Scottish Special Housing Association for any year, then the standard rents which they charge for that year shall not exceed an amount which, together with the high cost subsidy payable to them for that year, produces income which is equal to the development corporation rent income or, as the case may be, the Scottish
  410
  Special Housing Asociation rent income as respectively defined in section 10 of this Act.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  SERVICE CHARGES
  Amendments made: No. 102, in page 28, line 5, leave out' with such local authority or'.
  No. 103, in line 7, after 'concerned'. insert
  'and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
  Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

  GREY GABLES, THETFORD
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: I am grateful for the opportunity tonight, the first occasion during my time in the House that I have sought to raise a matter on the Adjournment, to draw attention to the consequences of the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to accept the recommendations of his inspector that consent should be given to the demolition and redevelopment of the house Grey Gables, The ford, following a public inquiry held on 12th May of last year. In my view such a decision has inflicted undeserved and unnecessary loss and hardship on my constituents, especially the owner.
  This is a complicated case but it is extremely well set out and argued in the inspector's report dated 6th August 1971. Grey Gables is a large, rambling house, mainly the Victorian redevelopment of an earlier site but including some old flint work, and seventeenth century cottages in its back premises which now, front the inner relief road. It was purchased in 1940 by the present owner, Mr. Arthur Bagshaw, as a home and premises for his professional practiceas a dental surgeon. He has served the people of The ford for 37 years and now, living on the Norfolk coast, away from The ford, as a new constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), wishes to retire completely, which he cannot do unless and until he can sell his main asset—Grey Gables.
  Incidentally, although he purchased his practice before the war there is no longer any sale for his professional goodwill because of the way the dental services have developed under the National Health Service. So Grey Gables is simply a piece of property unoccupied since December, 1970. However, it is no ordinary house. Some time after 1947 it
  412
  became a Grade II listed building presumably for a mixture of architectural and historical interest—architectural mainly because of the old flint work, which is interesting but which has no unity to it, and historical because of associations with Thomas Paine, the author of "The Rights of Man," who was born in 1937 near Grey Gables. I say "near" advisedly, and refer to the plaque put on Grey Gables during the war by the American Air Force, several of whose members became Mr. Bagshaw's patients, because considerable controversy exists as to whether Thomas Paine was born in a cottage which was demolished to make way for the Victorian redevelopment or, on the evidence, less probably, in one of the oldest cottage elements in the house.
  In 1966 Mr. Bagshaw started to try to sell the property as a residence, with or without the benefit of his dental practice. But such a rabbit warren of a house—and it is no less—and one so obviously expensive to maintain attracted no purchasers. However, in the summer of 1970 a local firm of solicitors in The ford urgently seeking new office accommodation, partly because their business was greatly expanding and also because they themselves were in premises which were scheduled for redevelopment, made a genuine offer to purchase provided they could get planning permission to redevelop the siteas professional office accommodation, of which there is a marked shortage in Thetford, for which the town expansion schemes are creating an additional demand.
  Application for listed building consent was made first to the The ford Borough Council, which had delegated powers from the county, and then, after satisfying the The ford Borough Council, to the county planning authority of Norfolk. In both cases, after a most detailed examination and no little argument from objectors, because of the architectural interest and the connection with Thomas Paine, both authorities in turn recommended demolition and redevelopment as there was really no practicable alternative.
  At that stage both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins)—who in his professional capacity is a surveyor and estate agent and whose practice extends to Thetford—separately examined Grey Gables, and each independently thought

  413
  that it was a hopeless proposition to renovate and came to the conclusion that it was not really worth all the trouble and delay of a full-scale public inquiry. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called the application in and the result of the public inquiry was to confirm all that had gone before. But instead of accepting these results the Minister, in his decision letter of 14th October, 1971, imposed a condition that all the old flint work part—that which was in the worst state of decay—should be preserved and incorporated in any new building, this apparently because of
  "the possibility that Thomas Paine was born in one of the cottages comprising the northern wing".
  and of
  "the importance of the eastern and northern wings"—
  containing the old flintwork—
  "to the street scene."
  The Secretary of State did not feel justified in granting consent to the demolition of Grey Gables except for that part comprised in the southern wing—the Victorian part. That was precisely what the inquiry and all the previous examinations inquired into, and they found that the practical reasons for demolition were overwhelming. This decision in effect operated as a complete refusal since no one would rebuild subject to that restriction.
  What is the present position? The applicant developers, the only firm purchasers for three years, have had to drop out and look elsewhere for new offices. Their principals have lost much time themselves; their staff have been occupied to no purpose; and they have incurred considerable out-of-pocket costs. Above all they have lost two years of time, with the consequent increases in building costs of new premises.
  The Thetford Borough Council is left with a deteriorating building when the town might have had a properly designed office building, efficiently housing much-needed professional services, and of course paying rates. The council has firmly refused to purchase Grey Gables because it would not spend £30,000 of the ratepayers' money, which is the minimum amount required to restore the existing building, even though its layout has no useful purpose. There are
  414
  over 350 listed buildings in the town and the borough council has made grants and used its resources to look after some of these.
  Thirdly, the status of the public in quiry has been greatly devalued by the decision. I quote a paragraph from the letter of the applicant solicitors:
  "Here we have a quasi judicial proceeding at which evidence is called and cross-examined and in due course the Inspector, who has seen the property or heard the witnesses, produces his Report and then the Minister—who as far as we know has never seen the property or heard the witnesses, but undoubtedly influenced by letters whose writers have never been properly cross-examined—rejects the Inspector's findings. One might just as well never have a Public Inquiry and as solicitors…this is something we must bear in mind in future both in planning appeals and in applications to demolish listed buildings."
  Inevitably my right hon. Friend's own reputation and that of the Department have been considerably damaged locally. It is conceded that a Minister must have power to overrule his inspector's recommendations, but it is also thought that where the same conclusions and decisions have come up through three stages there must be some fairly dominant new factors to justify the Minister's refusal. It makes it much harder for the local planning authorities to do their job if they feel they are to be subject to be overruled even when their views have been vindicated by a public inquiry.
  Most damaging of all is the loss inflicted upon the luckless owner applicant He cannot realise his main asset, invest the proceeds and complete his retirement. He loses income and is saddled with an open-ended liability. The Secretary of State recommended him to apply to the Historic Buildings Council for a grant. It, as was to be expected, turned Grey Gables down flat as being of insufficient architectural merit. Thus the owner has to meet all the expenses of the application, of the public inquiry and now of maintaining the building with diminished cash resources.
  Where do we go from here? In my view, circumstances have changed. The rot that the applicants foresaw has set in. The conditions imposed by the Secretary of State have deferred any serious purchasers since the present condition of the house makes restoration even more uneconomic than it was a year ago. No Government grant is available. It is not

  415
  even possible to get a mortgage. Vandals have now attacked the house, as was predicted by the applicants at the public inquiry, and have smashed the windows and stolen lead from the roof and all the door furniture. The damage is estimated at £650.
  There is no sign that any of those who might wish to preserve the building, notably the Thomas Paine Society, have any serious hope of raising the necessary funds or indeed, if miraculously the money suddenly became available, that attempted restoration of Grey Gables would be chosen as the most appropriate way of further honouring the memory of Thomas Paine.
  There is in Thetford a fine gilt statue opposite the borough council offices presented by the Thomas Paine Society of America, and more recently a new public house attached to the town expansion estate has been aptly named the "Rights of Man".
  I remind my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of the last sentence of the Secretary of State's letter to me of 13th December, 1971. In saying that he could not comment on something done in his quasi judicial capacity, he said:
  "I should add that if there were to be fresh evidence or a change of circumstances, it would always be open to the owner to make a new application, which would be considered on its merits in the light of factors prevailing at the time."
  In view of that statement, Mr. Bagshaw was advised to submit a fresh application, which he did on 24th May—coincidentally the same day as I was lucky in the Ballot.
  I have no reason to suppose that the local planning authorities will not adhere to their earlier very firm conviction that consent should be given. Again, I realise that the Minister cannot comment on what may become another quasi-judicial activity for him, but I ask all those concerned, whether as Ministers, councillors, civil servants, members of conservation, literary and historical societies or the general public, to bear in mind the loss and hardship that this long delay in fighting a physically lost cause has inflicted upon the innocent owner, who has served the people of The ford for a professional lifetime.
  I hope, therefore, that the new application will be allowed to go through
  416
  unopposed and that this important site will be redeveloped for a building worthy of The ford and of the memory of Thomas Paine. This would relieve the borough council of a growing eyesore and enable Mr.Bagshaw to retire without constant further anxiety. Anything less would seem to me to be inconsistent with any reasonable view of the rights of man.
  11.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): Having listened carefully to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill), I fully understand his concern for the position of his constituent Mr. Bagshaw in the circumstances which he has described. I have, however, to emphasise, as my hon. Friend understands, that once the Secretary of State has given his decision on a listed building consent application he has no further jurisdiction in the matter. Only the validity of the decision can be challenged by the making of an application to the High Court within six weeks of the issue of the decision, which period has now passed.
  It is not therefore possible to argue the reasons for the Secretary of State's decision beyond those already given in the decision letter. These were given in paragraph 3 of the letter, from which I quote:
  "The Secretary of State accepts that the structural condition and state of repair of the building, particularly in the older parts, is generally poor and that the cost of repair and restoration would be very high in relation to the value of the property for residential or office use, and that although the property has been in the market for over four years the only firm offer has come from the firm of solicitors who now wish to demolish it and build offices for their own use. Nevertheless he sees the importance of Grey Gables's main architectural features which are the late 18th century facade fronting White hart Street which retains its original details and the northern wing fronting Inner Circle Relief Road which was originally a row of two or three cottages of the 17th or early 18th century. Moreover he notes that these eastern and northern sides of the property are in a prominent position fronting a road junction on the outskirts of the old central area of The ford and that they make a positive contribution to the street scene at this threshold to The ford. He accepts that the southern wing of Grey Gables, which is larger than either of the other two wings, was erected towards the end of the 19th century and appears to have no particular architectural or historic significance.

  417
  "On the question of Thomas Paine's association with Grey Gables, the Secretary of State notes that the evidence given at the inquiry suggests that Thomas Paine was born in or near Grey Gables, but it was not such as to be conclusive that he was born in a cottage since demolished on the White hart Street frontage, or in one of the cottages now forming the northern wing of the house. There is, nevertheless, the possibility that Thomas Paine was born in one of the cottages comprising the northern wing, and in view of this and the importance of the eastern and northern wings to the street scene the Secretary of State did not feel that he would be justified in granting consent for the demolition of Grey Gables other than in relation to the part comprised in the southern wing."
  It is however possible to draw attention to one or two points in the decision. One is that the decision was not given merely on the ground of Tom Paine's association with the site. Arguments about whether Paine was born in the surviving building or merely on the site are not relevant because the Secretary of State's decision was also based on the contribution which these buildings made to the townscape and the historic character of part of a historic town which is on the list of the Council for British Archaeology of historic towns. We must be especially careful before allowing demolition of listed buildings in such areas.
  Second, the decision did not require the retention of the whole building but allowed demolition of the southern wing, more than half of the total area of the building. If the owner's object is redevelopment, there is scope for it here.
  Referring to the qualifications in the solicitor's letter, it is perfectly proper for the Secretary of State, while accepting the inspector's facts, to put a rather different weight on some of them and to arrive at conclusions other than those of the inspector. Where the decision has not been delegated to the inspector, it is the Secretary of State's decision and he is obviously entitled to form a different view, even on the same facts.
  As for the Government grant application, under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, Section 4 of the Act empowers the Secretary of State on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council, which was set up under Section 1, to make grants towards the cost of repairs to buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest. The
  418
  Chairman is Lord Hailes and the 15 members include Lord Holford, Professor Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, Sir John Summerson and Mr. Howard Colvin the well-known architectural historian. Only the most important buildings qualify.
  The council in its report for 1970–71 commented on this fact as follows:
  "We wish to reiterate the point made in our last Report, that refusal of a grant does not imply that we do not consider the building to be worth preserving. All it means is that the building is not of outstanding architectural or historic interest, that is, it is not of such importance in the national context that the taxpayer ought to contribute towards the cost of repair if the owner cannot meet the whole of it unaided. But all listed buildings whether outstanding or not, should by definition be preserved if possible. Applicants often plead that a grant ought to be given even if the building is not of outstanding interest, because its use or the user deserves sympathy and help. In such cases we have to harden our hearts since under the Act the only criterion for judging the eligibility of a building for grant is its outstanding historic and architectural interest either alone or as part of a group."
  The funds available for the council's formidable task are in any case strictly limited.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend has mentioned the very point which concerned me. He said that the council could deal with a building if it was part of a group even if it was not particularly outstanding. The Minister has himself already said that this building is part of an important group. How does my hon. Friend reconcile these two points?
  Mr. Eyre:It is a matter for the judgment of the council, which carefully considered the matter against this background. It decided that it was not of such outstanding interest as to merit a grant. I am sorry, but in the circumstances that was its decision.
  As I was saying, the council's funds are strictly limited. They were £1 million in 1971–72 and this sum was increased in 1972–73 by £500,000 in view of the proposals for conservation grants.
  There is, therefore, no inconsistency in the refusal of listed building consent for the demolition of all but the more recent addition to Grey Gables and the refusal of an Historic Buildings Council grant towards the cost of repairs. The council,

  419
  after considering all the evidence, considered that the connection of the building with Thomas Paine was too tenuous for it to make it outstanding on historic grounds, and from the architectural point of view it was of local, not national, importance.
  Mr. Bagshaw claims that the decision to refuse consent to demolish all but the Victorian wing of Grey Gables has cost him the sale of his property and that he accordingly has an unsaleable property which he has nevertheless to preserve. He also reported in March that the house had been broken into and much interior damage had been done and a considerable amount of lead stripped from the roof. He claims he is suffering severe financial hardship and mental strain at a time when he had planned to retire.
  It is necessary in these circumstances to examine the chances open to the owner. One possibility has already been mentioned: to sell the part of the site for which consent to demolish has been given, with a view to its redevelopment. Another possibility is to try to dispose of the house, or that part of it claimed to be associated with Thamas Paine, to some organisation representing those who urged the retention of the building either by appearing at the inquiry or by letter. If the building were offered, for instance, to the bodies which appeared at the inquiry or sent representatives, and time was given to them to raise the funds for purchase but this proved unsuccessful, this would be a factor that could be relevant to the future of the house.
  Second, while the decision took account of the condition of the property, it is said it has deteriorated further since. Nothing should be said which could encourage owners to neglect listed buildings to justify demolition for redevelopment. But there will always be cases where an owner, with the best will in the world, cannot prevent deterioration, and this deterioration must impair the value of the property as a building of architectural or historic interest.
  If there is a change of circumstances, the owner could make a fresh application for consent to demolish the building. This is something which the Secretary of State would have to consider in due course and it is not therefore possible to say what would justify such an applica-
  420
  tion; but obviously the condition of the building and the attempts made to dispose of it to possible purchasers, and also what had been done to try to realise the value of the part of which demolition is permitted, could all be relevant factors.
  I an application were made—I note from what my hon. Friend said that such an application has been made—it would have to be considered by the local planning authority. If the authority was disposed to allow it, my right hon. Friend would have to be notified and would again have to decide whether to leave the decision to the local planning authority or not. It is obviously not possible, as my hon. Friend will understand, to comment at this stage.
  It has been said that if an owner is refused consent to demolish a building he should be compensated. In fact, however, the law is based on the assumption that the building that has to be retained still has a reasonably beneficial use. It is, however, open to an owner to serve a listed building purchase notice on the local authority under Section 190 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, providing he can show that in its existing state it is incapable of reasonably beneficial use. The remedy by way of purchase notice is not intended for the case where an owner shows merely that he is unable to realise the full development value of his land.
  It would then be for the local authority, if it wished, to transmit the notice to the Secretary of State who, if he is not satisfied that the building has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, can refuse to confirm the order. Otherwise he can either confirm the notice on one of the local authorities or grant listed building consent. Again, since these matters would come before the Secretary of State it is not possible to comment further at this stage.
  To sum up, the decision in this case was one taken after full consideration of the circumstances as shown at the inquiry. It was, in effect, a compromise, allowing demolition of one part of the building and retention of the other. It cannot be altered unless there is a change of circumstances: but if the owner can show that there is such a change, there is more than one course open to him to adopt.

  421
  I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituent will carefully examine the words I have used and that some further step will now be considered by Mr. Bagshaw from which I hope a satisfactory outcome will result.
  Mr. Cooke:Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister may care to comment upon one other thing. The HBC has said "No" to a grant on this property, either on its own merits or on group value merits. But I believe that the local authority has power to make a grant under a consolidated Act of Parliament. It would be interesting to know whether it was ever asked to make a grant for repair, which I believe would be a grant or a loan. Perhaps that has a bearing on the case. If it was asked to make a grant but this was turned down, that is probably another argument for letting the local authority have its way. If the local authority has not been asked, that is a new factor.
  Mr. Eyre: I have noted what my hon. Friend says. I cannot answer for the local
  422
  authority and one would have to await the outcome of its view. But what my hon. Friend has said may be helpful to Mr. Bagshaw, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South will no doubt have taken notice of it.
  Mr. Hill:Is my hon. Friend aware that The ford Borough Council makes grants? The council has a great many listed buildings, but in this particular case it is not willing to find about £30,000 from the ratepayers for a building which it thinks of very minor interest.
  Mr. Eyre:Clearly that illustrates again the difficulty of allocating resources to ends of this kind.
  Returning to my main argument, I have tried to set out the courses available to Mr. Bagshaw and I hope that some satisfactory outcome will be found.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock

EMPLOYMENT
  Containers (Blacking)
  Containers (Blacking)
  Unemployment Figures
  Unemployment Figures
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Pay Awards (Cost of Living Index)
  Pay Awards (Cost of Living Index)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Earnings and Prices
  Earnings and Prices
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Tribunals (Appeals)
  Industrial Tribunals (Appeals)
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  National Industrial Relations Court
  National Industrial Relations Court
  Job Opportunities (Inner London)
  Job Opportunities (Inner London)
  Hearing Loss (Industrial Noise)
  Hearing Loss (Industrial Noise)
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Railways (Dispute)
  Railways (Dispute)
  Easington
  Easington
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  Building Industry (Craftsmen)
  Building Industry (Craftsmen)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Seamen
  Seamen
  Birmingham and West Midlands
  Birmingham and West Midlands
  Steel Workers (Scotland)
  Steel Workers (Scotland)
  Teenagers (Wales)
  Teenagers (Wales)
  Women
  Women
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Industrial Injuries
  Industrial Injuries
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Hunter Working Party on Medical Administrators
  Hunter Working Party on Medical Administrators
  General Practitioners (Terms of Service)
  General Practitioners (Terms of Service)
  Ware Park Hospital
  Ware Park Hospital
  Unemployment Register (Retired Persons)
  Unemployment Register (Retired Persons)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Telephones
  Telephones
  General Household Survey
  General Household Survey
  Private Operations (NHS Hospitals)
  Private Operations (NHS Hospitals)
  Maladjusted Adolescents
  Maladjusted Adolescents
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission (Job Prospects)
  Forestry Commission (Job Prospects)
  Food Standards Committee (Report)
  Food Standards Committee (Report)
  Advisory Services (Charges)
  Advisory Services (Charges)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Yields
  Tax Yields
  VAT
  VAT
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Rhodesia (Sanctions Cost)
  Rhodesia (Sanctions Cost)
  Weekly Income
  Weekly Income
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Advance Factories, Blyth
  Advance Factories, Blyth
  Electrical Engineering (Employment Prospects)
  Electrical Engineering (Employment Prospects)
  Airports (Security)
  Airports (Security)
  Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings (Gas Board Purchases)
  Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings (Gas Board Purchases)
  Pigmeat Products (Polish Imports)
  Pigmeat Products (Polish Imports)
  Post-Apollo Programme
  Post-Apollo Programme
  Concorde
  Concorde
  RB211
  RB211
  Companies (Registration)
  Companies (Registration)
  Rank-Watney Merger
  Rank-Watney Merger
  Economic Planning Regions (Prospective Jobs)
  Economic Planning Regions (Prospective Jobs)
  Japan
  Japan
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
CIVIL SERVICE
  Industrial Tribunals (Members' Pay)
  Industrial Tribunals (Members' Pay)
ENVIRONMENT
  Railways (Voluntary Overtime)
  Railways (Voluntary Overtime)
  Passenger Transport Executives
  Passenger Transport Executives
  Mineral Exploration (National Parks)
  Mineral Exploration (National Parks)
  House Improvement Grants
  House Improvement Grants
  Maplin (Wild Birds)
  Maplin (Wild Birds)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Terrorist Groups
  Terrorist Groups
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  South Africa (Mr. Mark Douglas-Home)
  South Africa (Mr. Mark Douglas-Home)
  CONCORDE (PRIME MINISTER'S FLIGHT)
  CONCORDE (PRIME MINISTER'S FLIGHT)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  LANCASTER
  LANCASTER
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECHES)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECHES)
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION
  EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

NORTHERN IRELAND: I.R.A.- CONTROLLED AREAS
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the I.R.A.-controlled areas of the Bogside and Creggan:

(a) unemployment and social security benefits are still paid to the inhabitants, and if so, how much and why;

(b) rates and taxes and gas and electricity bills, are still collected and if not why not.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, unemployment and social security benefits are paid at the normal rates to people in Londonderry who satisfy the statutory conditions; but deductions may be made to meet debts for rent and rates. There is no major difficulty in collecting payment for gas and electricity.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him three short supplementary questions? Does he not think that pressure on their pockets would help to separate the gunmen and the population, and also discourage the setting up of more "No-go" areas on either side? Are the Government aware that the overwhelming majority of the population of this island are rather fed up with the idea of paying £400 million a year net for the doubtful privilege of having their sons and husbands shot? Finally, can the noble Lord give an
160
assurance that the unfortunate British soldier, now unpopular with both sides, will not be put in a position where he will be fired at by both sides at the same time? Will the Government not forget, come hell or high water, the murder of Private Best and Marcus McCausland?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we are well aware of the whole range of matters on which the noble Lord has touched in his supplementary questions. I can best answer what he says, and what I know many people in Britain feel, by saying that to discontinue benefits and services, as the noble Lord has suggested in his supplementary questions, would require legislation and would undoubtedly have the effect of hardening attitudes in the areas referred to. This would only play into the hands of the I.R.A.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the great pressure for peace now in both the Bogside and the Creggan areas, of which I was aware even on Bloody Sunday? Will Her Majesty's Government continue the efforts now being made, primarily important to our own British soldiers, not to get involved in the conflict between the two sides?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, one of the most encouraging developments is that many people who previously made it clear that they were tired of violence are now beginning to take some action to bring about peace.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify what he said about the payment of gas and electricity bills in the "No-go" areas? Is he saying that the bills are being paid?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, gas is supplied in the Londonderry area by a privately owned undertaking, the Londonderry Gaslight Company Limited. The gasworks are in the Bogside area. The great majority of gas consumers in the Bogside and Creggan areas are charged by means of pre-payment meters. The company reports that, although there is a somewhat higher than usual incidence of the rifling of meters, recovery of money due is proceeding without major difficulty. The electricity service in Londonderry is provided by the electricity department of

161
the Londonderry Development Commission, which purchases bulk supplies of electricity from the Northern Ireland Joint Electricity Authority. The undertaking reports that settlement of credit accounts is continuing satisfactorily from all parts of Londonderry, although there is a certain slowness on the part of commercial consumers.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the recent response which he has received from the Roman Catholic population is very welcome to all of us? And is he also aware that he and my right honourable friend Mr. Whitelaw have our very warm support in the work they are now doing in Northern Ireland?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged for what my noble friend has said. I can tell him that my right honourable friend and myself are aware of and deeply value the support and good will that has been expressed by Members of your Lordships' House, Members of another place, and indeed the majority of the population of Britain in the work that we are trying to do in Northern Ireland.

U.N. CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the conclusions of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, a Command Paper setting out in detail the conclusions of the Conference will be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. Among agreements reached were resolutions on measures to assist the least developed among the developing countries, on the role of developing countries in relation to international monetary reform and on their participation in the forthcoming multilateral trade negotia-
162
tions, and on measures to encourage the development of merchant shipping fleets and the improvements of ports.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, and appreciating that we cannot debate the matter now (perhaps arrangements might be made for a debate when the Command Paper is published), may I ask him whether the total effect of the UNCTAD Conference was not disastrous because it failed to bridge the gap between rich and poor countries and even increased the gulf between them? May I ask him particularly why the British Government opposed participation by the developing countries in the International Monetary Fund and in shares of Special Drawing Rights, and the channelling of free money to the poorer countries?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's concern with these matters, and his desire for a debate will be discussed in the usual way. To follow up, the permanent machinery of UNCTAD will now take up matters agreed by the Conference, and its standing committees will be continuing efforts to find further areas of agreement. On the subject of monetary reform, I think there is common agreement that the British delegation played a major part in reaching agreement on a resolution which invited the International Monetary Fund to ensure, by the establishment of a special committee of Governments—the so-called Group of Twenty—the effective participation of developing countries in international monetary reform.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us greatly appreciated the persuasive and reasoned speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, made, and now regret that she did not stay at the Conference longer? May I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will do something to rescue this desperate situation, which will drive the developing countries on to the Communist side unless something is done in regard to the faint hope of the compromise resolution of a link with the International Monetary Fund?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will be most grateful for that reference to her

163
endeavours. As regards the aid link, the British Government approach this question of a link between S.D.R.s and development aid with sympathy, but we are not prepared to reach a conclusion on it, one way or the other, until a full study has been completed by the International Monetary Fund. As the noble Lord will know, we voted for the resolution which invited the I.M.F. to pursue its consideration of the possibility of a link in the context of world monetary reform.

GIBRALTAR DOCKYARD AND REFIT COSTS
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the relative cost of a refit of the Rothesay Class frigates at the four Royal Home Dockyards, and the estimated cost of a similar refit at Gibraltar Dockyard.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIF): My Lords, it is not the normal practice to disclose the costs of refitting Her Majesty's ships.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I was about to thank my noble friend, in view of her charm and wisdom, for taking a close interest in the affairs of Gibraltar, but in this case I must say that I am rather disappointed. May I ask my noble friend, in view of the principle of Her Majesty's Government to sustain and support Gibraltar, if she could say whether there is a higher cost involved in refitting a Rothesay Class frigate in Gibraltar? Would such an increased expenditure be due to wage claims that are now pending or to the lack of tools or equipment?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot entirely satisfy my noble friend, but it is difficult to give true comparative costs, partly because of the varying state of ships and also because of the overall workload in a particular yard. As to the expenditure required on a Rothesay Class refit, it would in fact be necessary
164
to spend something on new plant; and of course there are also at the moment certain wage claims pending.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say why it is improper to disclose the cost of refitting a frigate? Is it because it would cost too much or too little? Is the noble Baroness aware that a Select Committe of the other place can always obtain the information?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord will no doubt recall that I said in my original reply, that it is not the normal practice to disclose the cost; and I tried to explain that it is difficult to give true comparative costs because of the different workloads of different yards and because of the different state of ships.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether it would be cheaper to refit a ship in one of the naval dockyards at home or in Gibraltar?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think my noble friend is trying to ask the original Question. So far as we have any information on the future, I think one could say that to refit a modern frigate would not be any cheaper in Gibraltar.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, then may I ask my noble friend whether, if a Rothesay type frigate was refitted in Gibraltar, apart from H.M.S. "Whitby", would it detrimentally affect the workers in the dockyards at Portsmouth, Devon-port, Chatham and Rosyth?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's question, may I just say it would not affect detrimentally the work of these four home ports.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while admiring the skill of the noble Baroness, now that she has answered the question asked by her noble friend Lord Strathclyde about the cost of a new frigate being refitted, could she now answer a question about an old frigate?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I could say that such information as is available would not incline us to say that it would be any cheaper in Gibraltar.
LORD SHEPHERD: But, my Lords, is it not also a matter of providing employment in Gibraltar and giving the people of that Island a feeling that this country is willing to sustain them, despite some rumours to the contrary that have been circulating in Gibraltar?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct; and indeed we have given an undertaking always to support the people of Gibraltar. But on this particular matter my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence is hoping to make a decision shortly.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

HOUSING FINANCE BILL
2.50 p.m.
THE, MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): 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 Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Introduction of Part 1]:
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("eight") and insert ("nine").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would he for the convenience of the Committee to take this Amendment with Nos. 3 and 72, which are connected with it. Amendment No. 1 merely increases from eight to nine the number of subsidies set out in Clause 1. Amendment No. 3 gives the
166
title of the additional subsidy which I am about to propose, "the caravan sites subsidy." Amendment No. 72 describes how this subsidy should be calculated and on what basis local authorities should receive the additional money I am proposing.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): May I interrupt, first of all to indicate that at any rate from my point of view that would be convenient, but also to suggest to the noble Lord that he should include his Amendment No. 5.
LORD AVEBURY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I had omitted that and it does go with the increase from eight to nine; and if it is for the convenience of the Committee I will proceed accordingly.
The subsidy I am proposing here is, I should underline, for residential sites and residential sites alone, although I have not drafted it in that form. I think that subsequently one would need to tidy up the wording, but I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that that is what I have in mind. We are not here speaking about any sites that may be provided by local authorities for holiday use only, and it is possible to separate these out according to the type of licence which is awarded. So, with minor changes in the wording this could be put into a form where the subsidy which I am proposing would be payable only on residential sites and not on sites provided for holiday purposes.
Local authorities have had power since the passing of the 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act to provide caravan sites for people who choose to live on them; that is to say, ordinary residents who think it preferable to live in a mobile home rather than in a bricks and mortar house. It is estimated that there may be as many as 200,000 people in England and Wales who live in caravans out of choice or necessity. Most of these people, it is true, live on privately owned sites and not on sites provided for them by the local authority. If one were to put all these residents on an equal footing, additional Amendments would be necessary elsewhere in the Bill to take care of the needs of people who live on the private sites.

167
I want to point out to your Lordships that under this Bill the tenants of local authority houses will continue to enjoy some measure of assistance—not as much as many of us would like—from the community in meeting the costs of their accommodation, but the subsidies proposed under this Bill are a means of helping them to meet their accommodation costs. For the first time (except, I think, in the case of Birmingham) the tenants of private landlords will receive help, albeit subject to a means test, if their accommodation is unfurnished; and Ministers have given an undertaking in another place that later on a Bill will be introduced to put the tenants of furnished accommodation on the same basis. Owner-occupiers, of course, already receive substantial assistance, substantial financial advantages, through the income tax system. And, finally, people who live in hostels will benefit from payments which are to be made under Clause 90—although I shall have some remarks to make on that matter later.
So what I am pointing out to your Lordships is that every single type of householder in this country will receive either a subsidy (if one likes to call it that), or some kind of financial help towards meeting his accommodation costs, except those people who happen to live in caravans. This would be extremely unfair to the people who live in caravans and my proposal is designed at least partially to correct the situation so far as those people who live on local authority sites are concerned. Later on I shall hope to bring forward proposals to help the much larger number of people who live on privately owned sites.
Your Lordships will have noticed that in this Amendment no distinction is made between the sites which have been provided by local authorities voluntarily under the 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act and the sites which local authorities are obliged to provide for use by gipsies under the Caravan Sites Act 1968—a subject which has attracted some little attention in The Times over the last few weeks and which some of your Lordships may have seen was dealt with in a television programme of the B.B.C. yesterday evening. The reason why people are interested at the moment is that the rate of progress
168
towards the provision of sites for gipsies in England and Wales has been extremely disappointing over the last two years, in spite of the assurances which have been given by Ministers, including those given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to the Gipsy Council when he met them 18 months ago on November 5, 1970. The Press release which was issued by the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government reported the noble Lord as having assured representatives of the Gipsy Council that the Government intended to press ahead with the implementation of the Caravan Sites Act. He went on to suggest further discussions between the Gipsy Council and the local authority associations, which have now taken place. But the noble Lord will recall that when the responses to the Circular of May, 1970, had been received from the local authorities, proposals were submitted for 158 sites with accommodation for 2,330 caravans. Yet we are facing a situation 18 months later when no more than about 650–odd (I have forgotten the precise figure; the noble Lord has given it to me and perhaps he would refresh my memory when he comes to reply) have been provided: a rate of progress of fewer than 200 in the intervening 18 months.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that if we go on at this rate it will be some ten years before we even meet the problem as it was seen at the time of the 1965 Survey, Gipsies and Other Travellers, published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it was then. It was found that there were approximately 15,000 gipsies living in England and Wales and they were included in about 3,000 families. So at that time if one had provided accommodation of 3,000 caravans this would have met the need as it emerged from the Survey. But there are two additional factors to bear in mind. One is that the gipsies were almost certainly under-enumerated, because they tend to keep out of the way. particularly when police go round asking questions, even when the questions are comparatively innocuous. It is generally agreed that at the time the problem was studied there were more than 15,000 gipsies in England and Wales. The county of Kent had undertaken a study of its own and was not asked to repeat it in the nationwide

169
survey. The London boroughs of Bromley and Bexley were left out altogether so there were probably more than 15,000 gipsies at that time. It is estimated by the Department that there has been a growth of something like 100 families a year since 1965, which means that we have about 6,700 gipsy families in England and Wales, towards which there was provision made in response to the 1970 Survey for 2,330 pitches which would have accommodated two-thirds of the families.
I recognise that the obstacles in the way of implementation of the 1968 Act are not solely or even primarily financial, and where financial arguments were used at the time of the consultations prior to the introduction of the 1968 Caravan Sites Bill—as it was then—it was mainly because when any new obligation is laid on local authorities there is automatically a tendency for them to say, "You pay for it and we will see what we can do." The noble Lord will remember that the Urban District Councils Association have protested that a 75 per cent. grant ought to be payable on the analogy of the grants which were made under the Countryside Bill for transit and camping sites. I have not been as ambitious as that. I have suggested that they should receive a subsidy of £30 towards the cost of providing each individual pitch. I think this is a modest amount. If it costs a local authority £1,000 to provide a pitch, which is a fairly conservative estimate, the interest alone would amount to something like £80. This is nothing like the 75 per cent. grant towards the cost, even not taking into account repayment of capital, but it would be of marginal assistance to those local authorities who are finding themselves under pressure in meeting expenditure in other directions, who are being forced to increase the rates all the time and are experiencing their local citizens' reactions against these pressures, saying, "Why should we do more to help gipsies when the burden is going to fall on us as ratepayers?" It must be emphasised that this is a national problem. Some councils have a greater number of gipsies per head of population than others. In Kent alone the survey done in 1968 showed 308 travellers, while the next largest number of gipsies in any county was 195. I think
170
it would be fair for the taxpayer to make some contribution towards the expenses which will be incurred by local authorities in this connection.
The other point about this Amendment so far as it applies to gipsy sites is this. It is said that some gipsies will not settle down because they object to paying the rents on the site. This has yet to be tested. Whether 100 per cent. of gipsies would agree to go on to local authority pitches and pay the rents demanded we do not know. The contribution of £30 per caravan would enable charges to be kept down to a reasonable level, as they have to be under the 1968 Act, without imposing any additional burden on the ratepayers.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he comes to reply, will shorten the discussion by accepting my Amendment and will enable us to make a good start to the proceedings on the Bill.
3.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: The Committee will note that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is availing himself of the flexibility and tolerance in your Lordships' House in moving an Amendment which would scarcely have been in order in another place. Nevertheless, I am glad, and I think the Committee will be glad, of an opportunity to discuss this topic, especially the relatively small, though urgent, important and difficult issue of gipsy caravan sites. I have been grateful to have the benefit of the noble Lord's views on two previous occasions, in connection with both residential caravan sites and sites for gipsy families. But the fact is that apart from the 75 per cent. grant, which the noble Lord has already mentioned, under the Countryside Act for the provision of transit holiday caravan sites, Her Majesty's Government have taken a firm decision not to add to specific grants if it can be avoided, and in particular not to give further specific grants for any other holiday or residential caravan sites. We have taken the decision on the general ground, on which we are strongly supported by the local authorities, of moving away from grants which have the effect of central Government interfering inordinately in local authority decisions.

171
But there still remains the question of gipsy sites. In this connection we are dealing with provision for something over 3,000 gipsy families. As the noble Lord rightly said, this is a duty which has been laid fairly and squarely on local authorities, county councils, county boroughs and London boroughs. It is urgent; it is not yet being undertaken with sufficient despatch by those concerned in achieving a solution, and progress must be accelerated. More authorities are tackling the problem wholeheartedly than was the case two years ago, and very few authorities now think that the problem will disappear if it is ignored. Nevertheless, indifference in the councils still remains to be overcome, as do the considerable objections among neighbours of gipsy encampments. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that that is where the greater part of the problem resides.
There is also, however, a financial problem, and it is possible to do something to deal with that. Although it is the Government's view that in general it is right that local authorities should have responsibility for making their own decisions as to the priorities to be accorded to different kinds of expenditure, and that we should be able to rely on local authorities to give sufficient priority to small scale though urgent and important social problems, such as the one we are talking about at the moment, we should be able to do that without the need for special loan sanction treatment. In recognition of the particular urgency which my right honourable friend and I attach to this problem, the Secretary of State is prepared to consider applications for special additional allocations within the arrangements for locally determined expenditure from authorities which intend to provide sites for gipsy caravans this year and are unable to do so from within the normal allocation because of other commitments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of making this announcement. I trust he will recognise that my right honourable friend and I agree with him in the need to press on towards the completion of proper facilities for the gipsy population. But we do not feel that a new subsidy specifically for caravan sites is the right approach for gipsies or for anyone else. I hope
172
that, with that explanation and that announcement, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: It will be for the noble Lord to decide what to do about that. I am sure that those of us in your Lordships' House who support the Labour Party will wish to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for the second part of his speech. As to the first part, I hope he will forgive me for saying that a number of Amendments have been put down and are thought to be suitable for your Lordships' House, and it may be that they are Amendments which could not be selected for discussion in another place. I hope, therefore, that I shall not incur the wrath, either of your Lordships or of the Government Front Bench, in treating this House as having a unique contribution to make our legislative process, and I should prefer not to be pushed off that course by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. With regard to the particular statement made by the noble Lord—and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on having been so successful in his first very persuasive speech in achieving this result—could the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, make clear to us under exactly which legislative powers the financial assistance to which the noble Lord implicitly referred will be made available? If, as I understand the position, it is on powers outside this Bill, then of course we have no need to pursue the matter so tar as this Bill is concerned.
LORD AVEBURY: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say how grateful I was for the second part of his speech? I do not want to be too controversial, but I think it could be argued, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, that my Amendment falls within the last part of the Long Title—
"to make other provisions as to housing finance".
In fact the Bill includes clauses which deal with accommodation other than ordinary dwellings. Later on, as I mentioned en passant, we shall be considering the position of hostels. As far as the ordinary householder is concerned he has a roof of one kind or another over his head, whether he lives in a mobile home or in a bricks-and-mortar house.

173
I thought the noble Lord went a little too far in giving a hostage to fortune when he said that one did not want to interfere inordinately with local authority decisions, because that is precisely what the Government, rightly or wrongly, are doing in this Bill. We shall come to that later on. I was delighted to hear him say that progress must be accelerated, and it may be that the financial inducements which he said are to be offered are not the only means of doing this. I know that the noble Lord has other steps in mind which he is going to take shortly, but the important question which the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, posed and which local authorities will want to know about when they read this debate, is how much money they will get and under what legislation. The noble Lord said that there will be an additional allocation of expenditure. That could mean that he was being a little more liberal in the granting of loan sanctions to local authorities who are intending to set up sites under the 1968 Act. The only other possibility which I can see is that some of the money available for the urban aid programme might be devoted to the provision of gipsy sites, at least in the London boroughs and the county boroughs. The noble Lord said that a sum of money had been allocated for the purpose for this year alone, and it would be interesting for the local authorities to know what the amount is to be; whether it is a case of "First come, first served" and whether in fact there are some limits to it.
May I finally take issue with the noble Lord when he says that he sees this as a particular problem which has to be dealt with outside the general framework which has been laid down for some years, and moving away from specific grants towards helping local authorities through the rate support grant? That was not the example that I gave under the Countryside Act, as the noble Lord admits. We still come back to the situation I described in relation to the nongipsies who live in caravans. When we have passed this Bill they will be the only category of householder not receiving any assistance whatsoever, either through a means test or some kind of general assistance, such as the mortgage interest relief which owner-occupiers receive. I am not going to press my
174
Amendment to a Division, but if the noble Lord is going to leave the ordinary residents who live in mobile homes out of the arrangement while the Government are extending assistance to the tenants of private landlords who live in unfurnished properties, and subsequently, under another piece of legislation, to tenants who live in furnished properties, and taking into account the new hostels grant, we shall arrive at the situation, with this extra allocation of money for gipsy sites, where the ordinary people who live in caravans—the 200,000 people whom I mentioned at the beginning—will be the only people in this country without one penny of assistance from Government or rate support accommodation grants.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not wish to labour the point made by my noble friend about the first part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. In my view, one of the benefits of this House is that we have wide, flexible rules, one of which is the fact that we suspend consideration of the Title of the Bill to the end of the Committee stage. If we were ever forced to limit ourselves to the rules of another place we should then become merely an echo of that other place and this House would lose much of its importance and its influence. I want to put just one question to the noble Lord in regard to the admirable second part of his speech. He said that new sums would be made available this year. Are we to take it that this money must be spent within the present year, or do the Government intend that claims can be made on it this year but the actual spending will go an into 1973? Nearly half of 1972 has gone by, and for local authorities to spend this money during this year they would need to work with great expedition.
LORD HYLTON: I am sure that the statement made by my noble friend Lord Sandford on improved loan sanction arrangements for gipsy caravan sites will be much welcomed on all sides of the Committee. Having said that, I should like to express support for the principle of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I think it should he recognised that caravans, intelligently used, can provide a useful short-term relief in situations of acute housing shortage such as we have in the London area. Secondly, I know from my own experi-

175
ence of the gipsy question in Somerset of the extremely long delays between the putting forward of a proposal and its actual implementation. That arises for many reasons, including the delegation of planning powers. For all these reasons I should like to support the principle of the Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to reconsider what he has said and perhaps take a more favourable view at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: May I respond briefly to those comments before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment? One might have thought, from the comments, that I was criticising the noble Lord for the terms of his Amendment, but all I did was to note it. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may have had in mind other Amendments which are to follow. All should like to say, in response to noble Lords who have tried to draw me out a little further on the announcement about loan sanctions, is that the answers to all their questions are contained in the statement, if they will be good enough to read it carefully tomorrow. I can well understand that at one hearing it is not possible to register all the points that are there. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, this statement is one step, and I cannot in fact be drawn any further on it for the time being.
LORD AVEBURY: I am sure that the local authority associations will be asking the noble Lord further questions about his statement, even though we shall not pursue it in this Committee. We shall wait until we have their advice, and perhaps we can return to this matter on another stage of the Bill, although I hope that it will not be necessary for us to do so and that the local authorities will be able to take advantage of the offer made by the noble Lord this afternoon. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No.2:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that the total sum paid under the provisions of this Act shall not be less than the amount that would have been paid
176
otherwise and if there is a difference in any year, the rate support grant for the subsequent year shall be increased by an amount equivalent to that difference.").
The noble Lord said: We come to an Amendment which I hope is within the Long Title and which certainly touches the foundations of this Bill and enables us to expose in general terms the difference of opinion which I think exists between the Liberal and Labour Parties on the one side and the Tories on the other. It is Tory philosophy, which has been outlined in the Second Reading debate, to contain the amount of the subsidies which have hitherto been paid to local authorities and used to help council tenants in meeting their housing costs at their present level, whereas if the system of subsidies which had been in operation formerly were left unchanged they would have risen over the course of the years—risen to meet the cost of housing which is also rising. So it is quite possible that they would not have represented, under the former system, a greater proportion of the total amount which is spent on housing. This is a point that I should like to pursue a little further if the noble Lord who is to reply is able to give me some figures.
LORD SANDFORD: May I pick up the noble Lord at that point to suggest, as he has not done so, that here again it might be convenient to the Committee if his Amendment No. 2 and Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were all considered together? I think that probably would be a convenience to all concerned.
LORD AVEBURY: I have no objection to that. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, nodding his head, so we shall proceed on that basis. I was saying that one cannot tell whether, if the old subsidy system had been left unchanged, the total amount of those subsidies would have represented a constant and increasing or a decreasing proportion of the total cost of housing over the rest of this decade. It would be interesting if we could have some figures from the noble Lord, albeit they must be very broad estimates, as were the ones that were given by the Minister of Housing and Construction in another place on Standing Committee. It would have been most helpful if the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum had included some of these

177
figures and if in another place they had been able to see in detail what the effect of the changes were, a great deal of time might have been saved on Committee. I certainly do not blame another place for giving it a very thorough examination, because the more they discussed the matter in Standing Committee E the more figures they managed to drag out of Mr. Amery—with qualifications each time, but even so I think it enabled our colleagues in another place to understand the Bill very much better than they had before.
The only figures I want to quote, which I think are of fundamental importance, are those given by Mr. Amery in Standing Committee E, col. 84, where he said:
"If the existing subsidy system continued the … total … charges on the Consolidated Fund … including payments made towards rents by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, would increase by about £200 million by 1975–76 and by perhaps £400–£500 million by 1980–31"
Those were the best figures that he said he was able to give. Nobody will hold him to them. In fact it is going to be impossible to measure, and I doubt whether any local authority or local authority association when it comes to 1980–81 will be able to do a retrospective calculation and work out what subsidies they would have been entitled to under the former system or whether they would think it worth while to do that for the purposes of comparison. But what we are talking about is being able to get the broad feel of this Bill so that we can say whether we think it is right and just to the tenants who live in local authority accommodation. For myself, I believe it to be fundamentally unjust for Parliament to say, "We are going to subtract £200 million from the pockets of council tenants in 1975 and double that sum in 1980". I think that this proposal will have very serious consequences, not only for the hardship that it will cause to people living in local authority houses but all sorts of side effects which have not been properly considered by the Government: the inflationary effects of large Wage demands that will he bound to occur when trade unions realise the effects of the Bill on the cost of living of their members is just one.
The second consequence, which I touched on briefly on the Second Reading, is the social segregation which will occur as a result of poorer tenants being driven
178
out from the areas where the so-called fair rents are much too high for them to afford and the creation of ghettoes, and ghettoes within ghettoes according to the different types of council accommodation. That is why at this stage it is important for us vigorously to contest the subtraction of these sums from the help given to local authorities by the Exchequer and through the local authorities to the people who are living in their houses. This is a very evil proposal, and if this House does not express a very strong opinion on it then it will be to our everlasting shame. We have to echo what has been said to us by council tenants, what views have been expressed in another place, and to express those views as strongly as we can on this occasion. I beg to move.
3.26 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I want to support as strongly as I can the wise words used by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in moving his Amendment and to bring to your Lordships' attention the alternative ways of achieving quite the same objective which take the form of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the names of my noble friends and myself.
Amendment No. 6 refers to the provision of a sum of £300 million in addition by the year 1980–81. It talks about the exclusion of the rent allowance subsidy—because of course that is a new provision and we are anxious to compare like with like—and it refers to the total subsidies which authorities, that is to say housing authorities, in New Towns received in 1971–72 as defined in subsection (4) of Clause 2 of the Bill. Your Lordships will have noted in that subsection a full definition of the subsidies inuring to the benefit of housing authorities at the present time. Amendment No. 6 is a method of ensuring that the subsidies to be paid in the year 1980–81 are some £300 million greater than is provided for in the Bill. The path to 1980–81 is not closely so defined that it could move in a straight line or indeed in a wiggly line; that does not matter so long as that is the objective which the Government embrace.
Why the figure of £300 million? There is nothing I could say which would adequately serve to show how very much I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his criticism of the lack of figures which have so far been

179
available on the discussion of this Bill. We shall be coming back to that many times in terms of both the figures and the methods by which the various subsidies are to work and the way in which they are related to one another, because I daresay some of your Lordships may have found the same difficulty which I found in following exactly what was in the Government's mind. The figure of £300 million is an attempt to deal with the following so far unquantified items. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked, what would the central Government contribution have been in the year 1980–81 if existing subsidies had continued? We have been given some information, but it is information which is helpful but not adequately definitive. In the Financial Memorandum to the Bill we are told on page vii that the annual total net charges on the Consolidated Fund are estimated to remain at about the estimated level of such charges for 1971–72, namely, £350 million, at current prices; and that £350 million, I understand, to be £150 million of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and £200 million of subsidies. Assuming that that is right, I refer your Lordships to the phrase "at current prices". There is no need for me to remind your Lordships how important that phrase is; if your Lordships cared to go shopping you would discover from month to month how important a phrase that is. That phrase describes what the additional cost would be in to-day's figures, current prices.
I do not think any Government are going to be sufficiently bold as to assert that the rate of inflation between now and 1981–82 will be nil; and if one makes even a very modest assumption, that the rate of inflation between now and then will be, in the course of nearly 10 years, some 50 per cent., one sees the sort of importance to be attached to a clear definition of where we stand on current prices. If it had said "constant prices" one would know what is involved; but as it says "current prices" I can only assume that what the Government mean is that the proportion of our national resources allocated for this purpose, for the subsidies, is going to drop by 50 per cent. because the nominal amount is going to remain the same. We all know that inflation is an item to be
180
taken into account, certainly over 10 years, and so presumably what the Government are saying is that the main purpose of this Bill is to reduce the level of subsidies not only by £300 million as compared with 1981 what would have been, and 1981 what will be. but also by a further £150 million, being the difference between the purchasing power of the money then and now. I hope we are going to get a very clear answer to this, because, so far as I can gather, we have not seen a Government answer in another place.
That is the first thing I draw the Government's attention to, the phrase "current prices" used in the Bill. If the estimate is made about the level of such charges remaining about the same as for 1971–72, then we are told that they would have otherwise gone up, from £200 million to £300 million during the mid-decade to £400 million at the end of the decade, that is to say by £200 million. That is the amount of the increase, and, therefore, if you add 50 per cent. on to that to account for inflation, you arrive at a figure of approximately £300 million. So this is an attempt to give some kind of quantification to the purpose which we have in mind: seeking to achieve that local authorities continue to have the same assistance towards housing. for all the reasons adduced on Second Reading, which we think are valid and necessary.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to accept, or at least to indicate their attitude to, the different methods by which this same principle might be achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has indicated one method which appeals to him and his Party. I am bound to say that the method I prefer is one in which the pressure is put on keeping rents down rather than increasing rents and paying the surplus into the rate fund. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would presumably have the effect that the increases which are derived from the tenants will go into the pockets of the ratepayers. Of course, tenants are also ratepayers; but council tenants are not necessarily the highest ratepayers, or indeed the average of ratepayers in a given town or council area. So I think perhaps it would be preferable for the pressure to be against an increase in the rents,

181
which would be achieved by the Amendment which we are now discussing, Amendment No. 6.
Before I leave that matter, however, I want to go further into the statement in the Financial Memorandum, which, having referred to what is likely to happen until 1975–76, then goes on to say "and may be reduced thereafter"; that is to say, the cost of subsidies may be reduced thereafter. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply is now in a position, as this matter has been under consideration for a very considerable time, to give us much greater clarity about the extent of that reduction, because what we are dealing with is a 10 year period, and what we should like to know is whether the figure of £300 million is sufficient. It would be sufficient only if the amount of that reduction were negligible. But if there is going to be a substantial reduction, then the saving which this Bill proposes at the cost of the council tenants for the benefit of the Exchequer is even greater than the figure which was indicated on Second Reading.
So I put two questions to the Minister: one in relation to current prices, and the other in relation to the further reduction between 1975–76 and 1980–81. There is no need to consider whether any of the saving to which reference has been made is done at the expense of the rates, because we have been told that this is not the case, because the rate burden is also estimated to fall slightly; so we can for the moment, having regard to the size of the rate burden, something like £60 million or so as compared with £300 million in subsidies, ignore the question of rates for the time being.
There is only one further thing to say about this Amendment. It excludes the rent allowance subsidy because that is a new subsidy which has not hitherto applied, and therefore it would be right to exclude it in a comparison of like with like. So much for Amendment No. 6. That follows the principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but arrives at the answer in a somewhat different way.
We now come to Amendment No. 7, which remedies the defect in Amendment No. 6, in that it specifies, or defines at all events, the amount by which the increase is to be made each year. This
182
Amendment proposes a special subsidy and, as the Government feel it right to coin the word "fair" in connection with rent, we think it right to use the word "fair" in connection with a subsidy, so we call it the "fair subsidy". This subsidy is the difference at current prices—that is to say, the prices ruling at the time—between the total of the subsidies which would have been paid had the Bill not been passed, and the total of those which will he paid as a result of the Act. It includes, of course, payments made towards rents by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, because that is where there will be a considerable saving. As I understand it, about £150 million is the present rent contribution made by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and although I have not seen to what figure that will be reduced, I imagine that it will be reduced to a very small figure indeed.
No doubt the Minister will correct me if my understanding is wrong, but I believe that what the S.B.C. will be called upon to do under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, is merely in appropriate cases to pay the minimum rent. The difference between the minimum rent and the rent which is actually being charged will not be reimbursed by the S.B.C., but will be made up under the rent rebate arrangements in this Bill. So the burden falling on the S.B.C. will be considerably reduced, and one has to take that reduction into account. Amendment No. 7 does not define or quantify the sum, although we think that a figure of £300 million is a modest definition of the amount at issue, but it refers to it by defining the method under which it can be calculated; namely, by reference to the amount which would have been paid each year under the existing subsidy arrangements.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained these two Amendments, which are different methods of arriving at the same principle adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; namely, to make sure that council tenants will not be called upon to foot the bill so as to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and, to a tiny extent perhaps, on the ratepayer—but almost exclusively on the taxpayer—but that there shall be a reasonable system under which help will be given to housing, because housing is in very short supply.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Before the noble Lord completes his speech, can he say how he relates the payment to the council tenant to the payment to the tenant in a private house? Does he cut the private tenants out altogether? How do they get the equivalent of the subsidy?
LORD DIAMOND: I am most happy to respond to the noble Viscount. I do not cut anybody out at all, nor, to be fair, does this Bill. The Bill provides a new benefit for tenants of private unfurnished dwellings. If the noble Viscount is speaking of privately-owned houses, then of course the Bill does not affect the considerable subsidy which, in effect, is being paid to house owners at the present time. Perhaps I should apologise for not having added that one figure—namely, the figure of approximately the same amount, some £300 million—which is being paid at the moment, by way of tax reduction or mortgage option benefit, to those private house owners who are in the fortunate position of being able to own a house and are in the course of paying for it. They are in a fortunate position, because their subsidy is not being reduced; whereas the Bill proposes to reduce the subsidy which benefits the tenant of the council house, and it is the tenant of the council house whom we are seeking to protect from having this enormous increase in his rent, probably doubling it.
3.44 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am intrigued—though it is not for me to criticise—that an ex-Chief Secretary of the Treasury, fresh from another place, should lend his name to one of a group of Amendments all of which were ruled out of order in another place, and which would certainly raise questions of financial privilege if, peradventure, they were to be carried here. What is even more strange is that, in the case of his own Amendment, No. 6, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, positively obliges the Exchequer to spend £300 million more in 1980. He does not say how, or where, or to whom, or to what place, but he just calls the payment a "fair subsidy" in Amendment No. 7. If that is his approach, it is no wonder that our taxes go up under a Labour Government. Such a programme of indiscriminate and increasing Exchequer subsidy expenditure reveals for all to see the entire lack of
184
a precise and coherent housing rent policy in the Party opposite. Our main purpose is not to take money away from people. On the contrary, what we are doing in this Bill is carefully and precisely identifying the people and the places which still have acute and serious housing needs, and concentrating help on the same scales as at present on those particular people and those particular places.
I have been asked by the noble Lord to prophesy as far ahead as ten years. I will not do that. What I will do is to give some figures going up to 1975–76. I think the figures were given earlier, but I will gladly give them again. The position is that at the moment housing subsidies amount in total to £350 million, of which £200 million is straight housing subsidy and £150 million is paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. When we change over to the new system in the year 1972–73, the position will be that the total figure of subsidies will run at the same amount—I confirm, at current prices—of £350 million. Of that, £270 million will be straight housing subsidy of the new kind—we shall be going through a transition at that point—and £80 million will be supplementary benefits. The sum will not be so very small, but certainly there will be a reduction. Then, three years later in 1975–76—I really cannot be pressed to go further than that, and I shall say why in a moment—housing subsidies will be of the order of £220 million to £270 million with a supplementary benefits contribution towards housing of £80 million, still making £300 million to £350 million at current prices.
The reason why I cannot go further, is this. How can we say what will be the precise scale of supplementary benefit in ten years' time and how many people will need it? We do not know what will be the scale of rent rebates and rent allowances—we have already adjusted them once, upwards, since publishing our White Paper—and how many people will need them. What will be the scale of home ownership, and how many people will by then be standing entirely on their own feet? What will be the pattern of local government? We know that it is about to change radically, and the effect will be that the burden of building new houses and dealing with housing

185
stress will be quite differently shared quite soon. We have already undertaken to find ways and means of helping furnished tenants—another group which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, left out of his reckoning when we were discussing the earlier Amendment—who are not assisted under this Bill, and we hope that they will receive assistance. All those factors greatly alter these figures and make it quite worthless and precarious to forecast and crystal gaze as far ahead as 1980 and 1981.
But what I can reiterate to the Committee is that what we are doing is concentrating the present indiscriminate subsidies on the people and on the places that need them, and this is surely the right thing to do. We are adopting the system which the noble Lord's Party introduced—and we are grateful to them for introducing it—of fair rents. From what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, it seems that he now wants to abandon that, but we are adopting it. We are concentrating the present scale of subsidy, at no greater cost to the ratepayer—probably at slightly less cost to the rate-payer—so that the people in real need are more compassionately and more generously treated than they are at present or have been before, and so that the places in real need, which still have serious problems of housing stress, are given substantial assistance to clear their slums, improve their stock and build anew where necessary. For all those reasons, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept any of these three Amendments.
3.52 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I have just one point to make. In his reply to the Amendments the Minister kept referring to the fair rent and comparing this proposal with the Labour Government's Bill on the subject. I would say that the use of the word "fair" in this context is completely wrong. What he should be saying is the "market" rent, or even the "rack" rent, if you like; but to call this Bill a "fair" rent Bill seems to me to be quite incorrect.
I should like to support the Amendments which have been discussed, because it seems to me that, leaving aside any argument over the figures, what the whole thing is about basically is whether
186
those who really need the help should get most of the help or whether it should be spread over so that the people who least need relief will in fact get it. This is how I see this Bill; and it seems to me that these particular Amendments are absolutely crucial, because in many respects Clause 1 is the heart of the whole of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will find it possible to support these Amendments, because this is a thoroughly bad Bill. Even from what has been said so far, it is quite clear that if it is passed in this form it will he incomprehensible in many ways and most difficult to interpret; and we have seen in the past great wedges of legislation which, when they have passed through all the legislative stages and have got on to the Statute Book, have then been practically impossible to execute. This is exactly what will happen in the case of this Bill if it goes through in this form.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I also should like to support these Amendments. What the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, calls a "precise and coherent rent policy" is what I would call a "Heath Robinson kind of Bill". I can only compare it to that kind of cartoon. It starts from the assumption that there are a large number of people who are paying too little rent for their council houses; but no one in the Government seems to have done his sums, and there is nothing to show that this is true. In fact, we have learnt during the course of the Bill that there are some people who are already paying not only a fair rent but too high a rent for their council houses—a rent that is not justified. It seems to me that, because the Government have not done their sums, we should support these Amendments.
LORD AVEBURY: I am amazed that there have not been any contributions from the other side of the Committee on these two very important Amendments. One would have thought that members of the Tory Party, who are so interested in finance, would at least take part in this discussion, if not on any other part of the Bill, unless they have all been told by the Whips that they must keep quiet and get it through as quickly as possible, as I am rather tending to suspect in view of their conspicuous absence from this important debate.

187
I want to say just a few words following up what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said. I think he has exposed an extremely important aspect of these proposals. We are talking about current prices, and although Ministers have spoken of the subsidies remaining at something between £300 million and £350 million in total in 1975/76, as compared with £350 million this year, this means in fact a very substantial reduction. If inflation continues, as it has done under the Tories, at something like 10 per cent. per annum, compound, between now and 1975/76, we are talking about an inflation of well over 50 per cent., and that means a substantial reduction in the amount of help that is available to tenants in one form or another even in such a short space of time as the next four years. I think that this fact should be underlined. Tenants ought to be made aware of exactly what the Government are proposing in terms of the erosion of their purchasing power by this whittling away of the subsidies, while keeping them at roughly the same figure, and thus pulling the wool over the eyes of the public by causing them to think that the subsidies are still of the same value when in fact they are being greatly reduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that, of the two formulae, the one which I propose in Amendment No. 2 and the one in Amendment No. 6, he prefers his own. I do not quarrel with that at all. What I was trying to elicit in tabling my Amendment was some better explanation than had been given in another place, not only of what this difference is going to be in subsequent years but also—a question which the noble Lord ignored in his reply—what proportion of total housing costs the subsidies would represent in the year 1975–76 and subsequent years. That, I am afraid, he was not able to give. I understand the difficulties involved in forecasting ahead as far as 1980; but I would remind the noble Lord that, if it is worthless and precarious to do that, then the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr. Amery, has committed himself to worthlessness and precariousness in giving precisely such a figure.
I refer, as I have already done, to column 80 of the proceedings of Standing
188
Committee E. Why is it so difficult, when the Minister for Housing and Construction has given that figure to another place as long ago as last November, for the noble Lord, when he is asked the same question here, either to reaffirm what his right honourable friend has said, or, if he has a better figure to give the Committee now in the light of sub-sequent calculations made in the Department of the Environment, to revise it? But I must say that it is an insult to his right honourable friend to say that these figures are worthless and precarious when they have been given in another place in Committee.
The noble Lord is also quite wrong in saying—I only mention this en passant—that I did not refer to furnished tenancies in another context. I said that they were going to be brought forward in a sub-sequent Bill. The other point about the Minister's speech is that if he says that in this Bill we are merely adopting the system incorporated in the 1965 Act, I am glad to hear it, because I have some Amendments down later on to incorporate the rent assessment committee procedure, which is also in the 1965 Act, and I take it from the Minister's remarks that he will accept those Amendments when the time comes. This is a hopeful sign, although I am not sure whether he really meant his remarks to be interpreted in that way.
"Carefully and precisely to identify and concentrate help" is the noble Lord's summary of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill. Yet, when one realises that no rents are to be individually assessed; that they are all to be done on a wholesale basis, with the rent scrutiny board not obliged to consider the rent of any particular dwelling but dealing with great estates, with all the two-bedroomed semi-detached houses being given the same rent, that is not "carefully and precisely" identifying what a tenant ought to be paying. But if the noble Lord says that is his object, I repeat that I am delighted to hear it, because we can incorporate into the provisions of Clause 55, when we come to it, in the light of the noble Lord's remarks, some machinery for individual tenants to make appeals to the rent scrutiny-board and either to have representations in writing there considered

189
or to be able to attend for an oral hearing. I must say that the noble Lord's answer was very disappointing. Although I do not find myself inclined to delay the proceedings at this early stage, if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wants to press his own Amendments to a Division I and my noble friends shall be delighted to support him.
4.0 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: We have reached a serious position although we have been discussing this Bill for only a modest one hour. The serious position that we have reached is that I am compelled to say to the Government that they have hitherto been misleading the nation—no less than that!—and we have not had an adequate explanation, or indeed an explanation at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, the general impression has been that the purpose of the Government has been to maintain subsidies at their present level. That has been said, sometimes "in small print" as it is in the Bill itself—and, of course, those drafting the Financial Memorandum are careful to use words in their proper way—and sometimes without any "small print" at all. It has been made perfectly clear to everybody in both Houses of Parliament, and to the nation as a whole, that the Government's intention is to maintain the present level of subsidies—I repeat, the present level of subsidies.
That has been a key point in their argument and that has been their justification. They have resisted completely any allegation that they are reducing subsidies: they have said, in so many words, that they are maintaining the level of subsidies. Those previous statements are inaccurate and misleading—and that is a grave charge to level against the Government. But they must be inaccurate and misleading on the basis of the only comment which Lord Sandford, on behalf of the Government, thought fit to make; namely, that he confirmed that they are current prices. That means, to use his own words, that they are the prices ruling in 1975–76.
Let us examine first one aspect of it, that of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. We are now told (I think for the first time and I am grateful for the information) that the figure at present,
190
£150 million in to-day's money—let us be quite simple about it—will be £80 million in the money of 1975–76. This is a reduction of about one half. In fact, if one takes inflation into account it will he a reduction to about one quarter. That is the saving in terms of resources which the Government are making out of contributions to the rents of people who, by definition, cannot afford to pay for the roof over their own head. That is what the Supplementary Benefits Commission pays for. I cannot imagine that any one of your Lordships is content about that situation; nor can I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is content about it.
I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, of insincerity; I say that he has an important and difficult task to perform—and whether he has a guilty conscience or not in performing it is not my concern, for I am not the keeper of his conscience—to satisfy your Lordships that it is right to take money out of the pockets of council house tenants who have an average family income of (I think he said) £28 a week at the moment; to take money out of the pockets of those council house tenants who by definition cannot afford to pay for the roofs over their own heads, in order to make a substantial saving to the Exchequer and accordingly to the taxpayer. I am a taxpayer and I want none of that saving; and I suspect that many of your Lordships share that point of view, no matter on which side of the House you sit. That is why we say that this is a very bad Bill.
I have referred to only one tiny aspect of it, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, because the noble Lord gave us those figures. But there is also the other aspect: the total subsidies which the noble Lord said would be between £220 million and £270 million for 1975–76. May I ask the Committee to be good enough to give their attention to that bracket of from £220 million to £270 million?—a difference of £50 million. We do not complain about that; we are grateful for the information, and we accept the fact that it is difficult to give information relating to the future and that that is why responsible people who give that kind of information allow themselves a latitude of this kind. But what is wrong with continuing to allow a latitude of

191
this kind and to project the figures further? I cannot accept that it is impossible for the Government to make a reasonable estimate of what they have in mind for later years, though I can accept that the margin would be a considerable one. But there must be some indication.
How else could they put their names to a Bill which says that the figure is estimated to be a certain sum "until 1975–1976"—and that is exactly the year which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave us—and (as the Bill goes on to say in the Explanatory Memorandum) "may be reduced thereafter". It does not say, "… may be increased thereafter" but, "reduced". We know that that means that those responsible for the calculations of the effect of this Bill are satisfied that it cannot, under normal contemplation, result in an increase but will result in a decrease. But that decrease has not been quantified. What we are saying is that surely the Government must be able to give some quantification, even if only as a broad bracket of the kind which the noble Lord gave for the year 1975–76!
So I am saying that the Government must not be so shy about the disclosure of the figures—I say "shy" because I think that that is a thoroughly Parliamentary word. Of course, if you disclose the figures and there emerges as a result (as did the disclosure of the figures we have just had), the disclosure of current prices and that what the Government were saying can hardly be regarded as true, then the word "shy" takes on a different meaning. So I am asking the Government to be good enough to look into their files and give some indication of the meaning of the words, "may be reduced thereafter", which are used in their own Bill: because what we have established already in the first hour's discussion on this Bill is that the nation and both Houses of Parliament have been misled as to the effect and the intended effect of the Government's legislation, and that the subsidies are intended to he reduced. The level of subsidies is maintained, but as a proportion of the nation's resources they are to be reduced. In short, it will cost the nation less; a smaller proportion of the "cake" then available will be going to subsidies and more will be going to those who wish to consume that "cake" in other ways. We have
192
already established that we cannot quite quantify the size of that portion of the "cake" until the Government are good enough to say a little more about what the reduction "thereafter" may refer to.
So I am saying that this is already a serious situation, much more serious than the minor comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I was delighted to hear him make them; I was delighted to hear him say that he had some doubts about whether I was entitled to nut down Amendments relating to financial privilege. I am a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House and most anxious to learn; but, so far as I know, no one has suggested that I am out of order. I thought the Government would be delighted to have an opportunity to justify their approach to the Bill; certainly every Government which believe in their legislation are delighted to have an opportunity of having that legislation challenged in any way at all, even if they are unusual ways. So I do not think that I would quarrel with the noble Lord on those grounds. I was delighted to hear him say that the purpose of this Bill is to concentrate help in those places where it is needed, because I have a bundle of Amendments just for that very purpose from local authorities who are complaining bitterly about their lack of success in trying to persuade the Government that theirs is a case of special need, and asking is it not time that the Government carried out the purpose of their Bill, to make provision for their special needs. It will be my responsibility to refresh the memory of the Government on those cases so that there will be ample opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the whole of the Government, to show how right they are in claiming that the function of this Bill is to provide help in those places where it is specially needed.
We come back to these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has, as usual, been most kind in comparing the proposals in his Amendments and those in the Amendments which we have put forward. We all recognise that the Amendments are to achieve the same purpose, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been good enough to say that he would be willing to support Amendment No. 7 which I think is the most relevant of the Amendments. There is no point

193
in voting on each one of them because they propose different methods of achieving the same purpose. If it is appropriate for a Division to be taken on Amendment No. 7, I think that would be the best method of indicating how distressed we feel about the general purpose of the Bill and how astonished we are that the Government should have continued to mislead the nation up to this late stage.
4.13 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As usual the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put his case with considerable logic and moderation; except in one respect, which I regret, that he has accused the Government of having misled the nation. I would say right away that it is for each Member of your Lordships' House, as I understand it, to decide for himself what kind of Amendments he puts down. The questions that he has to bear in mind, or one of them, is how effective the Amendment will be in practical terms. Perhaps my noble friend was referring to that rather than to the fact that a particular Amendment is or is not within the ambit of the Long Title. Our procedures are very flexible and we take great pride in that. My noble friend made clear that nothing he has said has implied any criticism, although I think he was entitled to indicate a certain degree of surprise over the tenor of these Amendments.
The essence of Lord Diamond's criticism is that the Government have been misleading the nation. What is curious is that he then asks what is the meaning of what the Government have put into the Explanatory Memorandum. He finds it is what lie thought it was, and then he accuses the Government of having misled the nation. For the life of me, I cannot see that there can be any case for the Government to answer. They have made quite clear what is their objective. As my noble friend has said, it is to give assistance where needed; and the problem of any such policy is to be able to forecast what assistance will be needed at any particular time.
After all, the basis of the subsidies in this Bill is assistance towards deficits in housing revenue accounts in the future. How is it possible to project from any point what those deficits are likely to be? What the Government have indicated is that at the present levels the subsidies
194
will be about the same after this Bill comes into operation as they were before. It is reasonable to anticipate that in the future, as the country becomes wealthier and people become better off, they will need less subsidy and assistance, and therefore that the subsidies should decline. I should have thought that a reasonable assumption to make. But having suggested that we have been misleading the nation, for the noble Lord then to suggest as he did in his first Amendment, a flat figure of £300 million in five years' time, seems to me quite a contradiction in terms. What he says about the true value of the subsidies would apply equally to the value of the £300 million.
As for the Amendment which he is inviting the Committee to vote on, the problem is quite simple. The noble Lord does not define in what ways the money is to be spent. He does not indicate how the sums he is proposing be made available should be distributed. He gives no indication that they should go to those authorities which are in need; and some authorities will become much more in need in the future than they were, while I have no doubt that others will cease to have need of any assistance at all. But I ask noble Lords to realise from the very start that here we are not talking about specific subsidies and housing needs that can be quantified and projected into the future. We arc talking about meeting the particular needs of individuals as they arise and the particular needs of housing authorities where there is a great need to build more houses. It is in this way that these subsidies have been devised.
I hope that the Committee will accept that while it is right that we should aid individuals who are in need, it is not right to expect that because any individuals have been in need at one time they should receive the same aid indefinitely. whether they need it or not. That is why a system of subsidising house rents for people who may have needed a lower rent at one time but who no longer do so, is not a policy which ought to be pursued any longer; it cannot be justified.
So far from being in any way dishonest or disreputable, the Bill is an honest attempt to try to marry this concept of giving assistance where assistance is needed to the reciprocal concept of not continuing to give aid to those who no

195
longer need it. I hope that your Lordships in dividing on these Amendments—because I think we are in effect dividing on the three, although in the name of one of them—will bear that in mind. It is impossible to understand the purpose of the Government or of the Bill unless those factors are borne in mind through-out the consideration of this Bill.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in conclusion, that I do not think it helps to throw accusations of bad faith across the floor of the Committee? I do not think the noble Lord could make that stick on anybody on this side, and I hope he will not continue it in future. We are at the start of what may be a fairly long period of consideration of this Bill, and I hope that it will go smoothly.
4.23 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I reciprocate that, and I accept immediately the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of anybody who uses the kind of language and makes the kind of assertion that I made. One does not make it therefore without being ready to justify it. It is now my duty either to withdraw the allegation I made or to justify it. I am sorry, but I am going to justify it. I am going to refer the noble Lord to a speech made in this House, and if the noble Lord wishes it I shall prepare all the references which have been made by Ministers in another place to underline the point that I was making. I made it quite clear that in the Financial Memorandum the phrase "current prices" is used. That has never been explained. A question was asked in the other place in Committee, and it was not answered. I followed it through very carefully indeed.
What I am saying is that this Government, this Front Bench, has misled this House into believing that the subsidies are not going to be reduced. As we now know, they are. I therefore refer to col. 1526 of the Second Reading debate on May 18, where the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was replying on behalf of the Government. He said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, both spoke of the resources, or lack of resources as they
196
saw it, being applied by us to the housing sector."
"Resources" means what it says. It means resources, and not nominal amounts in cash at current day prices.
"We are only talking about resources being applied in the public sector in this Bill and the fact of the matter is that so far from cutting any of these subsidies we are maintaining them …".
I should have thought that was simple straightforward English that any one of us could understand: the resources being allocated to subsidies are being maintained. We now know that they are being at a minimum cut by the amount of deflation taking place between to-day and the relevant time. So I do not think I am called upon to do other than reiterate the importance of that phrase to which I made inquiry. And, of course, if one does not have Amendments, one cannot make inquiries. So if the noble Lord asks me whether I think this Amendment has served any useful purpose, I am sure that everybody inside your Lordships' House and outside will feel satisfied that it has: it has revealed the true nature of the purpose of the Government's Bill, which is to cut the proportion of resources being allotted to housing in the public sector.
The noble Lord said that there must he the same confusion in my own figure of £300 million. It is not like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who has no equal in his skill in getting legislation through this House with speed. to challenge me on something which I had already said and therefore make it necessary for me to delay your Lordships' Committee by repeating it for his edification; but I am bound to do so out of courtesy to the noble Lord. He will recollect that I chose his figure of a difference of £200 million. I made the assumption that the inflationary factor would be perhaps at that point of time 50 per cent. of £200 million, according to my unused arithmetic, as £100 million, and the two together, according to my unused additions, is £300 million. Therefore that inflationary element was taken into account.
The noble Lord then went on to make a much more serious point. He said that he could not accept the Amendment because it did not indicate how the

197
figure was to be distributed. That is a very valid point indeed. If the noble Lord is saying that the Government are prepared to look sympathetically on an Amendment of this kind, then I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I would have no difficulty whatever in accommodating the Government by withdrawing our Amendment, discussing with the Government details as to how the amount should be distributed, and putting down another Amendment at a later stage: because your Lordships will appreciate that we are at a preliminary stage of inquiry. This is what the Committee stage is for, and very fruitful it is. Therefore, we should be only too delighted if the noble Lord really meant what he said; namely, that his objection to the Amendment is not so much to the principle of the Amendment, but to the fact that we do not say how the £300 million is to be distributed, and we should be glad to help him and have a very tidy, well-drawn and professionally drafted Amendment ready for the next stage of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will respond to what I am saying now and indicate whether that is in the Government's mind, because if it is so we should certainly not wish to divide the Committee so long as the principle is admitted: that it would be a dastardly thing to withdraw the money to save the taxpayer at the expense of the poor council tenant, as this Bill is doing, and to do it on the basis of what has hitherto been a misconception by the whole nation, if we can avoid it. And we can avoid it if the noble Lord is now saying that the Government are having second thoughts and would agree to the present level of subsidies being maintained; that is to say, the proportion of the nation's resources which are at the moment devoted to subsidies being continued at the same proportion. If the noble Lord will be good enough to say that, then neither the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, nor I would wish to press your Lordships into the Division Lobbies. But if the noble Lord is going to come back to his point of view that the £300 million cannot be afforded and that the taxpayer must be saved at the cost to the council tenant, then we shall seek to divide the Committee.
4.31 p.m.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division cannot therefore take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("at the end of") and insert ("in").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. Perhaps it would be of assistance to some of your Lordships, particularly those behind me, if I were to say that we shall in due course come to Amendment No. 7 which has already been discussed. When we do reach Amendment No. 7 I shall seek to divide your Lordships' House. At the moment we are discussing, under normal and well-understood rules, Amendment No. 4. which is a simple and straightforward drafting Amendment. The reason for it is that when one comes to read this subsection, namely
"(3) The subsidies set out at the end of this subsection shall he payable …"
one wonders where the end starts: one knows where it finishes but not where it begins. So I was confused and wondered which one of these subsidies was intended. I found that presumably they were all intended. Therefore I could not for the moment see the reason—although I am sure there is a good one which the Government will shortly explain—for the use of the words "at the end of" instead of the simple word "in". Therefore, in order to seek that clarification or, if it be so, adjustment, I beg to move this Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: At the risk of moving on rather too quickly for some of our colleagues to have their tea, and on the strict understanding that noble Lords opposite do not draw too much encouragement from their initial success, I shall be pleased to accept this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: May I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord? It was well worth missing tea.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. We have already discussed this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, at end insert —
("( ) There shall in addition be payable to local authorities and new town corporations for the year 1972–73 and each subsequent year a subsidy, to be known as the fair subsidy, being the difference, at current prices, between the total of the said eight subsidies and the total net charges which would, had the system in
force prior to the passing of this Act continued, have fallen on the Consolidated Fund, through the appropriate votes, in connection with housing in England and Wales (other than for improvements), including payments made towards rents by the Supplementary Benefits commission.")—(Lord Diamond.)
4.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 105.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fiske, L.

Rusholme, L.

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Samuel, V.

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Seear, Bs.

Avebury, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Granville-West, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Hale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Birk, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Simon, V.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

McLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Swaythling, L.

Carnock, L.

Maelor, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Champion, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Pargiter, L.

Williamson. L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Platt, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Faringdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Lauderdale. E.

Albemarle, E.

Effingham, E.

Limerick, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elles, Bs.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lonsdale. E.

Atholl, D.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Loudoun, C.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lyell, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrier, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gage, V.

Milverton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Molson, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Monck, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Grenfell, L.

Camoys, L.

Gridley, L.

Moyne, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailes, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clwyd, L.

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

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Oakshott, L.

Courtown, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cowley, E.

Hayter, L.

Poltimore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hertford, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hives, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Daventry, V.

Hood, V.

Reay, L.

de Clifford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Rhyl, L.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Digby, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Sandys, L.

Dulverton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Savile, L.

Dundee, E.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Strang, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, L.

Swansea, L.

Willingdon, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Templemore, L.

Wolverton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Vernon, L.

Young, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.43 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall within one month of the passing of this Act and thereafter not later than 31st January in each year publish in respect of each of the eight subsidies his estimate of the total amount of each subsidy for the ensuing year beginning with the year 1972–73 and in the case of the slum clearance subsidy for the year 1971–72.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. As your Lordships will immediately appreciate, the essence of this Amendment lies in the word "publish", and of course one cannot publish unless one knows what one is going to publish. So the purpose of the Amendment is to elicit figures and to make sure that everybody who is concerned and interested in those figures shall be made aware of them. At the moment the position is far from satisfactory. Some figures were given on November 30 last year by the Minister at column 81 of Hansard, Standing Committee E, of another place. Those of us who are concerned with this Bill in detail have naturally studied those figures with great care. My own assessment is to allot two marks out of ten. They do not add up; they do not cross-cast; they are of some help, but I should have thought that the Government could do a lot better than that. The Minister in another place gave total figures. He gave, subject to brackets, which one well understands, the figures of the residual subsidy of slum clearance, of rent allowance, and of subsidies other than those two. Those figures were presumably at current prices, although I do not think that that was made clear. They referred to the four years ending 1975–76. Those figures are not sufficiently clear to those who are concerned with the problem of making their own provisions in the local authorities year by year, and arc not sufficiently clear to us who have the responsibility of probing the Government's mind and making such improvements in the Bill as we are able to achieve. So the first comment I have on
202
the figures which have so far been given is that they simply do not add up.
The second comment I would make is that they do not at the moment reconcile with the Public Expenditure figures given on page 40 Cmnd. 4829, Public Expenditure to 1975–76. Of course, I recognise we are now talking about public expenditure and are not talking about central Government grants. I would make the comment, in passing, that these Public Expenditure figures are given at 1971 survey prices, and that there is not a single figure in the Public Expenditure White Paper which does not define precisely the basis on which the price is calculated. But it would be very helpful indeed if there could be a reconciliation. Of course they are not the same things, but it would be helpful if we could at some time or other be supplied with a reconciliation between the Public Expenditure figures, given in a Government White Paper, and the figures given by the Minister in another place at column 81 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT for Standing Committee E, 30/11/71. In particular, although Public Expenditure and central Government finance figures are not the same figures, some indication ought nevertheless to be capable of being drawn from the comparative size year by year of the housing figures in the Public Expenditure White Paper.
The interesting point is that the Minister's figures show fairly equal sums, at current prices of course—that means actually falling amounts in real terms —for each of those four years 1972–73 to 1975–76. In particular, the figure for the year 1972–73 was not out of line with the figures of total subsidies for the other years, the figure for 1972–73 being given as £340 million to £350 million. But if one looks at the spread of the figures in the Public Expenditure White Paper one sees a substantial increase for 1972–73. I am sure there are some explanations. Reference has already been made to that figure including some arrears; but I do not think it is a sufficient explanation merely to refer to that. One wants to know how it is that in the Public Expenditure figures

203
there is an enormous surge of expenditure in 1972–73, whereas in the Minister's figures of central Government grants and subsidies there is no surge at all and the figure is in line with those of the other years.
I would repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said earlier in our debates about the lack of figures which have been supplied, and I want to go further than that. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to give the Government warning, if I may put it that way, rather than to leave the matter until we reach the Motion, Whether the clause shall stand part. Perhaps by the time we reach that Motion figures could be made available. I want to ask the Government whether they will not only give us the full figures showing what the estimates are for these various subsidies, but also give us some pro forma examples. In other fields, such as taxation, where legislation happens to be technical and complex, it is extraordinarily helpful to all of us to have examples, which the Inland Revenue used to be excellent at preparing, showing the kind of thing that would happen in different sets of circumstances.
The circumstances defined in this clause are varied and not easily understood. The clause refers to eight subsidies, but those eight subsidies are divided into four different categories. There is the category which has to be credited to housing revenue account; then the category which has to be credited to housing revenue account and is subject to limitation by reference to the state of the account. There is the category which has to be credited to general rate fund, and is subject to limitation by reference to the state of the housing revenue account. There is the category which has to be credited to general rate fund but which is not subject to any such limitation. One would like to know how typical examples are going to work out for various authorities. I am sure that the Government must have had such examples prepared in order that they fully understand what they are doing—I still have the youthful belief that Governments understand what they are trying to do. I shall try to hang on to that belief so long as I can. The Government will underline it and confirm if it they will be good enough to supply examples setting
204
out how the subsidy arrangements are to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is looking at me with an unusually puzzled expression. It may be due to the fact that he has the sun shining in his eyes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is the sun.
LORD DIAMOND: I thought that was the more likely explanation than that he was not understanding what I was saying. As I now know that he understands, I am grateful to him for listening and I hope that it will be possible for us to have these examples. I am sure that the understanding of the Bill and the speed with which we shall he able to deal with it will be greatly assisted by that kind of information. That is the purpose of this Amendment. It is not the kind of Amendment on which we should seek to divide the Committee, but it enables the Government to explain their views about publishing figures. It enables them to give us examples, and also enables local authorities and others concerned with this subject to get a better understanding than they have at the moment of the Government's legislation. I beg to move.
LORD AVEBURY: It would be valuable if the Minister could give us some further explanations on this, I am equally puzzled by some of the figures and by the discrepancy between the figures given by the Minister of Housing and Construction in Standing Committee E and those in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I could not understand why the Minister for Housing and Construction gave a detailed breakdown for three of the subsidies mentioned here—the residual subsidy, the slum clearance subsidy and the rent allowances subsidy—and then lumped all the rest together, even though he made the remark at the time that the rent allowances subsidy involved the most crystal gazing of all. If that involved more crystal gazing than some of these other subsidies (let us say the transition subsidy), that means he could equally well have given the detailed estimate that he gave to Standing Committee E for all the others and not lump them together as he did, apart from the three which I have mentioned.
If we add up the figures given by the I Minister, we get a band of £320 million

205
to £360 million for the total of subsidies in 1972–73, and £295 million to £380 million in 1975–76. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum shows that the total amount of the subsidies, including supplementary benefit, remains at £320 million up to 1975–76. So I am mystified by this. If we subtract the £80 million of supplementary benefit which the noble Lord mentioned earlier on from the total of Mr. Amery's figures for 1975–76 we get a band of £215 million to £300 million. I am asking the noble Lord to explain how that figure can he reconciled with the £350 million mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
It may be that in the lumping together of other subsidies Mr. Amery has included the amount which was paid in supplementary benefit. But if the noble Lord looks at the context of the discussions in Standing Committee E he will see that that is a very unlikely explanation; Mr. Amery was not being asked to discuss supplementary benefit, which is not a matter dealt with under Clause 1. There is a substantial difference of at least £50 million. If you take the upper figure which Mr. Amery gave, £380 million, and subtract the £80 million supplementary benefit, you get a figure of £300 million, which compares with £350 million in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could not only explain this discrepancy but also give us the breakdown for the other five subsidies, so that we can study the arithmetic and return to the matter at a later stage in the Bill.
4.57 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have listened with great interest and considerable trepidation to the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and feel that if ever there was a case of rushing in to do something somewhat unwisely it is to pick an argument with a financial expert. I hope that in answering questions I shall be able to explain the point that the Government wish to make. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said that the essential part of his Amendment is the word, "publish" and I have no doubt that in making that essential point he wishes to make it clear that this will help local authorities to estimate their housing need and the subsidies that they will get year by year.
206
The present situation is that under Section 91 of the Housing Act 1957 how much new council house building is planned is a matter for each local authority. There is no capital investment restriction placed on it by the Government. What a local authority does is based not on estimates of subsidy or central public investment, but what local authorities decide to spend in the light of the assessment of their own housing needs. The question one must ask is whether a change in the system of publishing these subsidies would help local authorities. It is difficult to see that they would benefit at all by this because the whole purpose of the subsidies is that they will affect housing authorities when they run into deficits on their housing revenue accounts, for they will then have these subsidies.
The particular figures that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked for, are to try to clear up what the Government estimate in detail the new subsidies to be for 1972–73 and the ensuing years. I will try to give him the best estimates that we have at the moment, recognising that these must be estimates. There is the residual subsidy, which is estimated for 1972–73 to be £110 million; there is the rising costs subsidy of £10 million; the operational deficit subsidy of £25 million; the rent rebate subsidy of £90 million; the rent allowance subsidy of between £5 million and £10 million; and the slum clearance subsidy of between £5 million and? 10million. This adds up to a figure of about £235 million and the difference would be made up in supplementary benefit to the total of the subsidies which the Government have talked about.
It is estimated that by 1975–76 the payments would be as follows: residual subsidy, £5 million; rising costs subsidy, £55 million; operational deficit subsidy, £15 million; rent rebate subsidy, between £105 million and £135 million (and this is a very wide range); the rent allowance subsidy between £30 million and £50 million and the slum clearance subsidy between £10 million and £25 million. I hope that these figures are of some help in explaining the general estimates of how the subsidies are thought to work out. It is very difficult to give precise examples of how they would work in each local authority, because it will

207
depend on the details of each local authority which it will know and will be based on each local authority's assessment of its own need.
5.1 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was so gracious and modest in her appearance at the Box that one is considerably constrained to say anything other than, "Thank you very much indeed". But I feel it my duty, nevertheless, to say to the noble Baroness that what she said was so acceptable that. I am going to ask her to say a little more. We are very grateful indeed for the figures. This clears up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the figures for total subsidies include the continuing payment by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I imagine that in the case of this last year—I do not know whether the noble Baroness has the figures for 1975–76—it must be in the order of £50 million or so. At all events, I understand from what she says that the figure of total subsidies which was given by the Minister in another place is £300–£350 million for the year 1975–76 and is made up of the figure that she has been good enough to give us together with the supplementary benefit payment, whatever that was for that year.
I am surprised that the noble Baroness thinks that the publication of these figures would not be helpful to local authorities. Representations which I have seen have indicated that certain local authorities would be glad. to have this information which would enable them to plan ahead and to work out their rate demands, which is an annual necessity. Some of them are in considerable difficulty, as I understand it, not being able to determine precisely what those figures will be which will determine the individual case, as much from the lack of clarity of the Bill itself as from lack of overall figures which have not been published. I should have thought that there would be some advantage, particularly as publication takes place in another form; namely, in the Public Expenditure White Paper to which I have previously referred, which I hope is going to continue to be published each year and which sets forth the public expenditure likely to be incurred on housing including subsidies for the five years, rolling the five years forward with
208
each annual publication, so that the figures are capable of being ascertained.
I do not suppose it would be possible to get the public expenditure figures without working out the very figures for which we are asking. I have no doubt that they would be available in some file in the Treasury or in the Department of the Environment. I hope that the Government will be good enough, to reconsider whether it might not be for the convenience of those concerned that the figures should be published in a form more readily assimilable by them rather than the present figures which arc published purely as public expenditure and do not divide Government grants from local authority expenditure.
The other point on which I wanted to press the noble Baroness was to ask whether she could not go further with the figures than those for the year 1975–76. I recognise that there has been some hesitation about going beyond the years 1975–76, but the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, referred to the fact that the Minister in another place gave a figure for 1980–81. He said:
"if the existing subsidy system continued, the annual total net charges on the Consolidated Fund in connection with housing in England and Wales, including payments made towards rent by the Supplementary Benefits Commission would increase by about £200 million by 1975–76 and by perhaps £400–£500 million by 1980–81. Those are the best figures I am able to give."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Commons, Standing Committee E, 30/11/71, col. 84.]
There is a spread of 25 per cent., £400 million to £500 million, but that gives the order of the figures and one knows what one is dealing with. If one makes appropriate adjustments for the inflationary effects one knows the proportion of resources which the Government intend to devote to subsidies. I wondered whether the noble Baroness had further figures, which she felt on one of her far too rare appearances at the Box she ought to be a little hesitant in giving. We are delighted to see her and hear her and would be even more delighted if she would be a little less shy and give us more figures if they are available to her. This is not an Amendment which we are intending to press to a Division, but we want the best information which the Government can let us have.
LORD AVEBURY: It is always hard to try to do arithmetic while on one's feet.

209
I was thinking about the reconciliation which I asked the noble Baroness to make between the total which the Government had given by adding up the amounts given by Mr. Amery in Standing Committee E and the amount that occurred in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I think she has clarified it to the extent that what he called "other subsidies" in Standing Committee E must have included supplementary benefit as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says. If one adds together the figures which the noble Baroness gave for rising cost, operational deficits and rent rebate subsidies for 1975–76 one arrives at a total of £175–£205 million. If one subtracts that from the total given by Mr. Amery of £250–£300 million "other subsidies" one arrives at the estimate of supplementary benefit payments for that year. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm that that is correct. I think it must be. Taking the lowest figure from the lowest figure and the highest figure from the highest figure one gets a range of £75–£95 million of supplementary benefit for that year which reconciles with the figure which has already been given. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would tell me if by arithmetic is correct.
5.10 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just raised a number of rather difficult arithmetical questions. I feel that arithmetic is not in fact my strong suit at any time. If I may put the figures in these terms, the total subsidies at present are estimated to be about £350 million, of which supplementary benefit makes up approximately £150 million. The total subsidies that I gave in round figures for the year 1972–73 amount to about £260 million, and in round figures the total subsidy from supplementary benefit would be about £80 million. I hope this answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. These are round figures and therefore they can be adduced in the same way for the year 1975–76. The difficulty about giving any figures after 1975–76 is that it is really much more difficult under the new system to have any really meaningful estimates as to what the subsidy figures will be because it is more difficult to see exactly that far ahead how everything will work out.
210
In saying that, may I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who asked what is the purpose of publishing the amounts of the subsidies for local authorities and is this really going to help them to get on with their house building, that we think that the advanced publication of estimates of the total cost of subsidies will not really help housing authorities because the amount of subsidy which an authority can expect to receive for the following year can best be estimated by the authority itself in the light of the knowledge of the factors which determine the amount of the subsidy. In future, it will be the state of their Housing Revenue Account and their building and slum clearance programme. In fact it is much easier for an individual authority to estimate the individual subsidy entitlement for the next year than for the Government to do so, and in a sense I think that the publication of the figures will not necessarily help local authorities in making their estimates, and it could lead to a misunderstanding of what the subsidy system is going to be. However these round figures will of course be published in Hansard and will be available for local authorities to read.
LORD DIAMOND: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.12 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and new town corporations about the need for housing and the amount of subsidy required to ensure that need is met before publishing the estimates referred to in the preceding subsection.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to subsidies to be credited to the general rate fund, but it goes a little further in that it brings into play the whole question of housing need. Speaking on earlier Amendments my noble friend Lord Diamond has sought to probe the Government's intentions and to examine the financial strategy of the Bill. The Government have not been amenable in regard to meeting the constructive proposals which he made to ensure that future subsidies ought to reflect not only the pressures of inflation

211
but to provide a really substantial increase in the numbers of houses built by local authorities and New Town Corporations; in other words, houses built to let.
This Amendment would confer on the Secretary of State not only the opportunity to consult with local authorities and New Town Corporations about housing need—an opportunity he undoubtedly possesses and can use if he so desires—but would do more: it would lay on him the duty, an obligation, to consult; and local authorities and New Town Corporations, with the responsibilities they have carried, are entitled to anticipate this. As it is, the Bill threatens to belittle their standing and to usurp their functions to a degree that ill becomes a Government supposedly committed to extending freedoms in the area of local government. I think that local government is becoming increasingly aware of not merely unfulfilled promise in this direction but a contraction of the freedoms they have enjoyed. I hope therefore that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, and incidentally, if they do, they may do a little—but only a little, I am afraid—to redeem what was interpreted as a promise.
I thought that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made crystal clear the Government's intentions in regard to future subsidy policy; that is, as has, been pointed out this afternoon already from these Benches, to hold subsidies to a more or less fixed figure regardless of what happens in terms of new building. How, later in his speech, he was able to say, referring to tenants who did not qualify for a rebate,
"they will no longer be paying for anybody else's rebate or for anybody else's house"
was—and still is—quite beyond my understanding. It surely would be wrong to lay down in this Bill that subsidies are to be held at present levels regardless of developments. It is surely wrong in principle to introduce such a restriction. The effect on local authorities could be—and many people believe it would be—quite catastrophic. As the Association of London Housing Estates has put it:
"The new subsidy structure is such as to deter local authorities from ambitious building programmes and therefore the housing shortage will be perpetuated."
212
I think it is worth bearing in mind their further stricture on this Bill; namely,
"The shortage will inflate the values of houses for sale".
The General Council of the T.U.C. made known their views, which were of a similar kind. They said:
"The proposals of the Bill would shift the emphasis of housing subsidies to individuals and away from housing costs as such. While there may be a need for individual subsidies (for example rebates) to assist individuals whose resources are low in relation to their housing needs, the basis of subsidy policy should be designed to reduce the general level of housing costs in the various sectors. The aim should be to encourage the diversion of a larger proportion of national resources into housing."
They then pointed out that at present the United Kingdom spends a lower proportion of the gross national product on housing than any other advanced country.
As I have tried to point out, the Amendment charges the Secretary of State with a duty to consult local authorities and New Town Corporations about the need for housing. And who knows more about the problem than they do? They live with it. I was very interested to hear the remarks of the noble Baroness who was lately speaking on that very subject. Local authorities know the need in terms of homelessness. I come from a very wealthy county, Surrey, and even in Surrey the County Council from time to time face the human problem of homelessness, and regrettably they have from time to time to take children into care, breaking up their families.
Local authorities know the need in terms of inadequate housing. They know the extent of the problem of slum dwellers. They know the demand that follows population growth. Local authorities and new town corporations are in the best position to assess new demands following migration to areas of development, and local authorities have the task of compiling the lists of would—be council tenants. They are the best qualified to know real need and to project a future need. They also know what is happening and what is likely to happen in the private sector in their areas. These are the people best qualified to assess the number of homes required in their localities to meet need. They also know local rates of pay. They can best assess what a fair rent, in terms of what can be afforded, ought to be. Not only can they give the Secretary of State invaluable help; they

213
are the people best qualified to do so, to give him help in assessing the number of houses that ought to be built, houses that ought to be built by public enterprise, advice as to the rents that are reasonable and proper for that area, all these things having regard to local factors.
In the past, they have done a very good job and they have done it very much on their own. If their freedom to manage their housing finances is to be taken away, the least that ought to be done is to make certain that the Secretary of State consults them to ensure that housing programmes are related to housing need, in terms of housing as a social service. And it is remarkable how little is said on the Benches opposite about housing as a social service. All the talk is about fair rents, at a level not based even on economic cost but going beyond it in many cases. Total subsidies ought to be variable to permit increases to meet growing need. This Amendment would write into the Bill that the Secretary of State should learn from those best qualified to assess the need for new building the proportion of that new building to be met by public enterprise, and following that assessment—and who can doubt the need for an expansion in this field?—for more expenditure in housing. On the basis of that consultation he could then determine the need and the amount of subsidy required to ensure that that need was met.
If the Amendment does not commend itself to the Government—and to my mind it should be an easy one for them to accept—perhaps they will tell us what their projection of need is, because I was a long way from being satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has to say earlier this afternoon. I should have thought that it was possible to project housing need, certainly up to 1980. If the Government are unable to accept this Amendment I hope they will tell us how they intend to assess housing need, and what proportion of it—and this is vitally important—as they see it, they intend shall be met by way of public enterprise through, in the main, local authorities and new town corporations. I beg to move.
5.25 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has touched on a
214
great many points in his speech and I do not know that I shall quite follow him on all of them, but I should like to reiterate what I said in speaking on the previous Amendment about the purposes of our present proposed subsidy system. The fact is that I agree with Lord Garnsworthy—and anybody who has been in local government as I have, particularly in a county borough which is a housing authority, knows—that a local authority is able to assess its own need, its need both for housing for social service and for housing for all sorts of other people who are local authority housed. But under the new system of housing finance proposed in this Bill, a local authority, once it has decided, say, to clear slums or to build more houses, knows perfectly well that that is not going to affect the rents which the tenants have to pay, because these rents have been fixed at fair rent levels. It knows that its ratepayers will not be called upon to meet more than 25 per cent. of any loss which arises out of slum clearance or new building which the authority has decided is necessary to meet the housing needs of its area. So to this extent I believe a local authority has a new freedom to go ahead with slum clearance, and the aim of our subsidies is to give them to those places which do have particularly great need. We all know that there are some areas with a much greater housing need than others.
As to the question of consultation, I hope that there is always a continuing consultation between central and local government over a whole range of matters and I should not have thought that by including this Amendment in the Bill local authorities would in any way be able to do their job better than they are able to do it now.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have the feeling that the noble Baroness was speaking somewhat with her tongue in her cheek. Local authorities would be able to do their job very much better if they thought the Government were really regarding them as partners and if it was accepted that the Secretary of State had had laid on him the duty to consult—not merely to consult if he wished, but the positive duty to consult. The noble Baroness has said that the Bill confers a new freedom on local authorities. What

215
kind of new freedom is it when the Government, in point of fact, do so much to take away powers that the local authorities have exercised so creditably and then come up with this mouse of an offer and suggest that it really is tremendous? Local authorities would much appreciate it if the Government would accept this Amendment, or at least put into the Bill, perhaps at a later stage, what this Amendment is aiming at. I believe that the Government themselves would Rain as a result, because they must know that local authorities are anything but satisfied with the so-called freedoms that the Government have conferred on them. They see the conferment of the freedoms that the Government have given as restrictions rather than extensions. That is true, and it would be difficult for anybody to claim that overall local authorities gain from the terms of this Bill any additional power to what they have had. In point of fact they are going to be limited in a way that they have not been limited before.
Let us take the question of slum clearance, because once again it has been suggested that the Bill is concerned to secure that monies are, diverted to areas of stress and there are clear indications that it is the Government's thinking that there are many parts of the country that call for no new buildings. Take the question of slum clearance alone. Would anybody dare to suggest that we can say that by the end of 1975, by the end of 1980, by the end of 1990, or the year 2000, we shall no longer have slum clearance problems almost throughout the length and breadth of the country? Because houses are continually reaching a point where they no longer provide the amenities that the age demands. Houses wear out. Although much may be said about the improvement that is taking place at the present moment, refurbishing old houses, putting in new amenities, it is only a matter of time before houses again become slum clearance problems. I just mention that in passing.
I hope that the Government will not he obdurate in such a small matter as this. It seemed to me that even the noble Baroness was anxious to make clear that she thought local authorities knew more about it than anyone else, and that they were the best people to consult because
216
they knew the problems so well. I very much hope that the Government will think again. If they are not prepared to do so, I shall not press this Amendment to a Division, but I cannot see that there is here any principle which the Government must reject.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, speaking up for the freedom of the local authority. I seem to remember that in the past there have been occasions when he has invited the Government—I think this Government and possibly the previous Government—to intervene to I encourage the Surrey County Council to take a certain action, or to refrain from taking a certain action. What I am rather concerned about is that his Amendment rather suggests that it should be specially laid down in an Act of Parliament if local authorities are to consult with Ministers. I thought that one of the great points about the County Councils Association, for example, was that they should have access to Ministers. I should not like to see this new precedent, that they can consult only when it is laid down in an Act of Parliament that they should do so.
LORD DIAMOND: Perhaps I may say one more word in support of what I thought was a very persuasive speech and a solid point made by my noble friend. In preface to that may I deal with the point which has just been made? If one looks, for example, at Clause 4(12) one sees a reference to the Secretary of State's exercising his powers in relation to this clause, and it says that he shall,
"follow such methods and principles, and take account of such matters, as he may from time to time decide after consultation with such associations of housing authorities as appear to him to be concerned, and with any housing authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable."
It is not putting on the Minister a duty to do anything that he is not prepared to do it is simply Parliament saying to the Minister, "Before you reach these important decisions you will consider whether you ought to consult housing authorities and similar bodies which seem to you to be concerned." It puts on the Minister this responsibility. He cannot say, "I did not consult because it did not occur to me that it was a good idea to consult." Here Parliament is saying that it is a good idea on all occasions, laying it down

217
and taking valuable space in a Government Bill to do so. I do not think we can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or the noble Viscount who made an interesting intervention just now, that it is unusual for the desire to consult to be expressly stated in Government legislation. Here it is only three clauses ahead. My noble friend is asking, if it is good enough for Clause 4, which deals with one part of the housing problem, is it not good enough for Clause 1, which deals with the whole of the housing problem. I am bound to say that I thought my noble friend made an absolutely unanswerable case that there ought to be provision in the Act for consultation.
For answer the Government may say, "We do not like the wording. We do not like the form in which the consultation has been described." And they may say that they prefer their own wording about consultation as I have read it in Clause 4. We are not sticklers for wording. The essential point is to deal with the situation which I fear many local authorities and Her Majesty's Opposition in this House are anxious about; namely, that the Government are withdrawing a good deal of latitude from local authorities and are proposing to ride the high horse so far as local authorities are concerned. One of the main functions of the local authority is freedom in rent fixing and carrying out its housing responsibility—a very important function. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, who has great experience in this subject, will have served on a housing committee and knows what a responsible part of local authority action this is. A good deal of that responsibility, the major part of it, indeed, is being taken away. There are many parts of the Bill where consultation ought to take place and may take place, but where it is not provided for. Our object, seeking to improve the Bill, is to see that it is provided for.
So far as this Bill is concerned, it would certainly do a great deal to encourage local authorities, who fear that they are losing a good deal of their responsibilities. Having regard to other Bills before Parliament, many local authorities will be very anxious indeed—but I must not refer to that aspect too closely. But so far as this Bill is concerned, local
218
authorities are under that anxiety, and my noble friend, speaking with his great experience of local authority work, made what I thought was an unanswerable case for including a reference to consultation, using such words as the Government and the Minister find acceptable. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel it possible to respond a good deal more hopefully than hitherto. Otherwise I think that my noble friends and I will have to change our minds about dividing the House.
LORD VIVIAN: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I say that I feel there is quite a lot in what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, and also in what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am wondering whether, if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, agreed not to press this at the moment, the Minister would consult his right honourable friend in another place to see whether we could perhaps agree to discuss it at a later stage of this Bill.
5.39 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think that everybody who has ever been connected with local government at all will stand up for local authority freedom—and certainly no one could have served, as I have done, for fifteen years in local government without believing very strongly in local authority freedom. I think the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, have really raised three major points between them. The first one goes back to this interpretation of what the new subsidies do. We on this side believe that in fact the new subsidies give a freedom to local authorities, because local authorities, in deciding the amount of house building they will do, are dependent not upon the estimate of the subsidy but on their own estimate of the housing needs and the number of new houses they need to build. Anyone who has served on a local authority knows that it has been very difficult, when it comes to building new houses which are very expensive, with these very awkward problems of deciding whether to put up rents or rates, or not to build the houses. Under the present proposals for housing finance, a local authority knows that it can go ahead and clear slums and build houses, and knows that that will not affect the rents which tenants pay and that the ratepayers

219
will not have to bear more than 25 per cent. of the costs. That seems to us to be a great help to local authorities.
The second point which has been raised is that if this Amendment were made it would somehow benefit local authorities, because they would have this highly formal consultation. I should like to begin by reiterating what I said earlier, that there is continuing consultation at all levels between central and local government, because in a sense they are partners in a great many operations and that must continue to be so. The question is whether this highly formal consultation would benefit local authorities. The answer to my noble friend, who is worried about this point, is that if the Government asked all local authorities to give an account of how they were discharging their duties in this sphere, that would not necessarily lead to more freedom for local authorities. Quite the contrary—they would then have to give an account and answer all sorts of questions, and I cannot see that local authorities could benefit by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that consultation is provided for in Clause 4(12). With the greatest respect, I think that the consultation in that case is somewhat different from the consultation which is proposed in this Amendment, because the consultation mentioned in Clause 4 is about a decision of the Secretary of State, which is a somewhat different matter. For those reasons, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the Committee will appreciate that I have been more than anxious to withdraw this Amendment; I do not think the Committee will feel that I wanted it to go to a Division. But after what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just said, I feel that I have a duty to those who have been in the Chamber listening to the arguments to go into the Lobby. It may well be that many who have not heard the arguments will come into the Chamber—but be that as it may. I think that those who have listened ought to be given the opportunity of showing what they think about the Amendment.
I was really surprised that, with 15 years' experience of local government, the
220
noble Baroness had not appreciated exactly what the Amendment is aiming at, because, towards the end of her remarks, she said that she did not think local authorities would benefit by being called to account. That is the very last thing that the Amendment seeks to do. What it seeks to do is to lay on the Secretary of State the duty to consult them about the need for housing and the amount of subsidy required to ensure that that need is met. I do not want to take up every point that the noble Baroness made, but may I put this to her? She should not too lightly dismiss the 25 per cent. which local authorities will have to pay, and she should not overlook the fact that in years to come, unless the Bill is modified, they may be called upon to pay a very great deal more than 25 per cent. We have no assurance that, in perpetuity, 25 per cent. will be the limit of what they will be asked to pay.
With regard to their freedom to project housing need and to determine programmes to meet it, the noble Baroness knows, as well as I know, that this Bill will take away from local authorities the right to fix the rate of rent. What is the use of building houses if the rents that are to be charged have no relation to a number of factors which I mentioned earlier, such as wage rates in the area and so on? It may be said that rent rebates, rent allowances and so on are intended to take care of that difficulty. But nobody can be anything but disturbed at what has quite clearly been established as the intentions of the Government about overall subsidy commitment. Therefore, I regret very much indeed being compelled to give the Committee an opportunity of registering its views.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before the noble Lord proceeds further, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can agree to the suggestion of the noble Lord who is sitting behind her, that this matter should be considered between now and the next stage of the Bill. I make the point specifically because, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I think that his Amendment is now defective since in the concluding line it refers to the preceding subsection which has not been passed by your Lordships' Committee.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: That could be put right later.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I still suggest that it is a defective Amendment. If the noble Baroness can see her way to having some further consultation, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will be willing to raise the matter again at Report stage if he has not had a satisfactory response.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord finally makes up his mind to divide the Committee, may I make this suggestion to him? He would be in a very much better position to understand exactly the full implications when we have discussed Clause 4, which gives a great deal of flexibility and is bound to involve a lot of consultation. He would then be in a very much better position to make up his mind on a matter of this kind.
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend is in this difficulty. I am certain that he would be ready to respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if we had an equal response from the Front Bench opposite. An appeal was made from behind that Front Bench that the Government should consider the case that has been made for this Amendment. An appeal was also made from the Liberal Benches. I understand the difficulty of the noble Baroness. We know that on many occasions Ministers have to speak without a departmental responsibility and have no option but to stick closely to the brief. But that is not so in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. They should say to my noble friend, "All right, if you will wait until Clause 4 before making up your mind, we will undertake to consider very carefully what has been said, and if we think that we can concede the point we ourselves will conic forward with an Amendment at Report stage." But it is no good the noble Lord appealing to my noble friend unless he, too, is willing to respond to the appeals which have been made not only from the opposite side of the Chamber but also from the Liberal Benches. The choice is open to the noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn. If there is to be a Division it will be his responsibility.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I go some way with what the noble Lord has just said. However, all I can say is that at the moment we see no reason for this Amendment. But our minds remain open, and we think that the minds of the Opposition also should remain open until we have considered Clause 4. But it would be absurd for me to say that until we have considered Clause 4, which we believe will provide the answer to the noble Lord, it does not make sense to divide on this issue.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord makes no concession at all—none whatsoever. It would be so easy for him to say, "We will look at this. We will give it sympathetic consideration, and if you have a point then we will come back at Report stage and put it right." I think that in the circumstances he has created a very great difficulty for me. By his complete unwillingness to unbend in the slightest degree, he compels me to give the Committee an opportunity to divide.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope—
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope the Committee will allow me one more word, unless noble Lords opposite are determined to divide on this.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: If the noble Lord—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord please allow me to continue? The simple point here is that neither of us has yet convinced the other in this matter. The question is whether we should put that to the test of a Division now, when we are suggesting to the noble Lord that there is quite a likelihood, if I may say so, that once he understands (I doubt whether he does yet; it is very difficult to understand) how Clause 4 works, he will be very well satisfied. But, of course, if the hardliner Lord Shepherd wants to divide in all circumstances, the Committee may want to follow him. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that of course we shall consider everything that has been said in this debate. I give the noble Lord that assurance. I cannot give any kind of assurance as to the outcome, and I was not asked for such an assurance, but I will I say that we will consider it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Too late!
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 103.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Avebury, L.

Garner. L.

Segal, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Grenville-West, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Shinwell, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hale, L.

Simon, V.

Blyton,L.

Henderson, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Hurcomb, L

Somers, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hylton, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Tanlaw, L.

Chorley, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lytton, E.

Wade, L.

Collison, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Crook, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Willis, L.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Fiske, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Fulton, L.

Platt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elles, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Errol of Hale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Molson, L.

Balfour, E.

Forester, L.

Monck, V.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Glendevon, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V.

penrhyn, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Poltimore, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Camoys, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hailes, L.

Reigate, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

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

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Sandford, L.

Courtown, E.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Cowley, E.

Hertford, M.

Savile, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Hood, V.

Strang, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Templemore, L.

Derwent, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wrottesley, L.

Dulverton, L.

Limerick, E.

Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: We on this side of the Committee do not agree that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. We find the Government's proposals as set out in Clause 1 quite unattractive. We believe them to be quite unhelpful to local authorities, and particularly unhelpful in so far as the procurement of new houses at reasonable rents is concerned. I use the word "reasonable", as distinct from "fair" as defined by the Government. The purpose of the Government's proposals is to save some £200 million a year by the mid-'70s. That is less than the figure would be if the present situation were to continue. My noble friend Lord Diamond pointed out what we can anticipate by the mid-'70s or by 1980 as a result of continuing inflation. He made the point that the position would be quite serious compared with what it would he if the present system of subsidies, with all its faults, were continued. The saving has to come from somebody, and the saving, quite clearly, is going to come from the tenants of council houses. It may be said, "Yes, but only from the better-off tenants. "But, of course, there are not so many really better-off tenants living in local authority houses. Why should they, in particular, be picked upon to subsidise poorer tenants not only in their own locality but nationally? And this will be the case when the Government take half the£60 million surplus that they estimate; that is to say, when they take £30 million from the local authorities. Incidentally, this figure is strongly challenged as being an underestimate of what they might achieve.
Clause 1 contains no encouragement at all to local authorities to build; indeed, as I tried to stress on the last Amendment, there is a positive discouragement. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has a tongue of silver and that he can present any case in such a way as almost to convince the critics that they do not understand and that really this is a Government of nothing but good intentions. But the Government's good intentions are to penalise tenants of local authority houses to the advantage of taxpayers. What the Government are going to achieve is a penalty tax on a comparatively small section of the community
226
who happen to live in rented accommodation; and I think it wrong that there should be this kind of discrimination against any section of the community.
What is wrong with living in rented accommodation? When I look at the prices of houses in the private sector. I am inclined to ask the Government this question: do they want to force everybody into the position of becoming fodder for the gazumper? Are the Government satisfied with what is happening with regard to the cost of houses, and particularly those being offered for resale? I raised this subject by way of Question in this House a month or two ago; and if the situation to-day is any indication, I am more than justified in feeling that the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave me on that occasion showed that the Government have no policy effectively to deal with the situation. The Government simply optimistically expect a large increase in house ownership.
The levels of house prices to-day are really frightening. I think that the Government's own figure for last year's increase was about 17 per cent. As understand it, that is the national figure; for the South-East it is a good deal higher. When I asked the Question I mentioned that the Nationwide Building Society have estimated that in the South-East the increase was something like 21 per cent. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, for writing to me following those Questions. I have to say that I reread his letter this morning, and I am left with the feeling that the Government are not alive to the situation, in the sense of wanting to do anything effective about these spiralling house prices. There are some to-day who believe that the figure is rising rapidly to a great deal more than 21 per cent. There are some people who believe that it is now well over 40 per cent. In the little village where I live, the prices being asked, even for two be droomed cottages that must be 70 to 80 years old and desperately in need of bringing up to date, arc really frightening. They are at a level of about £8,000. Even then, because of the gazumper, would-be purchasers have to wait months before they know whether contracts will be exchanged. It seems to me that the Government are sitting by supinely while house prices rocket.

227
A few weeks ago the Sunday Times issued a coloured supplement telling readers what had happened to some property in London and how the cost had gone up and up. The eventual figure, one would have thought, was for a mansion, not a cottage which had been played about with. Increasingly, in this situation where the price of houses for sale is rising so rapidly, public enterprise will have to meet the need. If that housing need is to be met, I see no alternative to a massive expansion of building by local authorities and new town corporations. Despite all the criticisms from noble Lords opposite about house construction in the last year or two of the Labour Government, the present Government have a long way to go to catch up with the finest achievements of the Labour Government. Overall, in terms of the number of houses we produced, I do not think that we did badly though I should have liked us to do more. But if the housing need is to be met, there will need to be, having regard to what is happening in the private sector, and if we are to avoid inflation or contain it, a substantial increase in the building of houses by local authorities. I do not think the Government realise where this Bill will lead us in that connection.
Houses built by public enterprise will have to be let at reasonable rents. Again, it is no use riding off on the business of rebates and rent allowances. Let us be under no illusions. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, invited us to consider what is said in Clause 4 and the subsequent clauses. This Bill imposes on local authorities an obligation to put up rents by 50p in the pound as from April of this year or from October this year, by another 50p next year and another the following year. The level of fair rents is to be reviewed every three years. I wonder whether the Government would care to give us a projection of the eventual fair rent figure by, shall we say, 1980. Surely it is the aim of everyone to avoid unnecessary means testing and unnecessary poverty. One wonders what kind of wage rates are anticipated by the Government throughout the length and breadth of the country if these fair rents continue to go up and up, as under the provisions of this Bill they certainly will. I can only think that the Government know that they will not have to face the problem in 1975, let alone 1980; and
228
that in the meantime they are set on a course designed to do as much damage as possible. I sometimes doubt whether the Government understand exactly the position which they are in danger of creating.
We on these Benches are concerned with the total availability of houses. We extol the great initiative and achievements of local housing authorities in providing homes for one-third of our people, as distinct from this Government who see housing as a profit-making enterprise. We seek to encourage those housing authorities who have done so well to continue and to extend their enterprise. We want to see an increase in the number of houses available for letting at reasonable rents. There is nothing shocking about living in a rented house. We are living in times when the mobility of labour is recognised as being essential. Surely even members of the Government are aware of the difficulties which are created to-day. Let us take the teaching profession as an example—and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will know that what I am saying is true. There may be a vacancy for a teacher in a school, and this is advertised. The governors want to appoint the best candidate who may live in the provinces. Let that teacher come to Surrey. to Oxted, in the stockbroker belt, and see what are the price of houses. Then the teacher may think of what he can get for his home in the Provinces. I am not exaggerating: people whom boards of governors would like to appoint withdraw their applications before they are interviewed; and often after they have been interviewed and have been offered a job.
I ask the Government what they intend about the proportion of new building between the private and public sectors having regard to this inflationary situation in the private sector. I ask whether they intend that the present trend shall continue. I beg them, before the Bill goes further, to tell us what they are prepared to do about containing the price of land and houses. As I understand the position, the overall expectation is for a modest percentage increase in house production in the years 1971–72 and 1975–76. I think that the White Paper (Cmnd. 4829) gives the figure on page 13 as 0.2 per cent. If the private sector

229
grows it will leave the public sector in decline. It may be that the expansion of the public sector is part of the strategy to contain subsidies at their present level.
In the Guardian for June 2 there was a report that the number of houses and flats started in April was 1,700 down on the figure for a year ago at 29,400. Private sector starts were up 1,600 at 18.000. But public sector starts were down by 3,300 at 11,300. Private sector completions were 1.100 up for the month at 15,300 and public sector completions down 1,700 at 10,800. I do not like playing about with statistics too much, and I have little doubt that figures may be produced by spokesmen opposite to show that, for different months and quarters, these figures are not typical. All I would say is that I went to the Printed Paper Office yesterday and asked for the latest housing statistics, because I was not anxious to use figures that could be shot down. The housing statistics with which I have been provided are for February 24, 1972. T have no doubt that the Printed Paper Office give all the help that they can, but I am asking the Committee to take note of the fact that I have tried through the normal channels to get a complete picture and to ascertain the figures and I have been unable to do so. I hope therefore that I might he foreiven for relying on that report in the Guardian.
I come now to areas of stress. This is surely a national problem towards which everyone should contribute a solution. I hope that nobody will say that in the end we shall only be taking £30 million, because I believe that we have no right to take even £30 million from tenants. If we need special subsidies for areas of stress, then the money ought to come from the general body of taxpayers. It is wrong to levy a special form of tax on council tenants through rent. Whatever faults the present subsidy system has, we at least can be sure—and we are sure of nothing in the Bill; we can only get assessments and estimates that vary by as much as £50 million—of what the present subsidy system involves and how the assessments are made. Let me say that we on this side, had we remained in Office, would have had a new look at the subsidy situation. Let nobody ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford did: What would you do?
230
What is your policy? The Government's representatives sit on those Benches and it is for them to find an answer to current problems.
Had we remained in Office we should have completed our investigations. I am not inhibited; I did not hold office in the previous Administration. But I had every confidence that my colleagues would bring order out of the present system without inflicting penalties on council tenants, and would do so in such a way as to ensure that the public sector played an increasing role, in the present situation, in providing houses at reasonable rents for those who need them; for the children, who arc surely entitled to grow up in a decent environment.
I sometimes think that we forget the real problem of housing. We are fortunate in that we have homes. What worries me is the large number of families—not percentagewise, but numerically—who go to the local authority or to the county council and say: "We are being turned out of our house". I wonder how much attention the Government give to the small number that are housed temporarily, all too often in sub-standard accommodation, and how many are turned away and left to fend for themselves. I believe that the authority on which I sit have recently been taking accommodation in hotels. It would be far better if local authorities in the area were building houses at rents that people can afford. Never mind the "fair rents" that will result from the formula of this Bill. I honestly believe that those who run away with the notion that this formula for fair rents is acceptable have no conception of how the other half lives.
This clause is so lacking in clarity and information that I certainly should like to invite the Committee to divide against it. We shall listen to the reply. But we ought to be told at this stage how the total figure of £350 million—if that is the figure—is to be broken down. If I am told, "Well, you have already had it", then I think I can say that I am probably as had a mathematician as anybody here, and I certainly could not do the sum sitting down on the Bench behind me, let alone standing on my feet. But if it is said that the figure has already been given in detail, then I will await until tomorrow when I can read it in Hansard.

231
The information that we have been given overall is very confusing. One of the major faults of this clause, and indeed of the whole Bill, is its lack of clarity. Last evening one of your Lordships—I have tremendous respect for him and his business experience, as no doubt all your Lordships have—said to me: "What does this Bill mean? I have tried to read it but cannot understand it". I think that is the difficulty that many of your Lordships have experienced. It is written in a jargon that is unhelpful, and presented in a way that is unhelpful. It really is no good for noble Lords opposite to say: "We know what we are talking about. You can trust us". I think that others apart from those on the Benches behind me will not take kindly to that kind of appeal, if it is made. We object to the clause in that it is unfair in making the least able members of the community bear the burden of providing better houses.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: May I ask the noble Lord who these least able ones are to whom he is referring?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Tenants of local authority houses.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: But are they the least able? Are they not quite obviously the most able?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Out of respect for the noble Lord, I think I ought to leave his question on the Record without answer.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Who can imagine that people living in local authority housing are best able to help to pay for the building that we are going to get?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: They are the people who are going to get the help.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Perhaps the most important thing that we feel on this side is that we cannot see this Bill making the contribution to the provision of additional houses that in so many places is so desperately needed.
VISCOUNT M ASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Before the noble Lord sits
232
down, can he say why it is unfair that, for instance, half a million people, or perhaps more—I have brought up this question before—earning between £40 and £50 a week will, if this Bill goes through, probably have to pay rents of £5 to £6 a week? I suggest that the noble Lord should study the structure of rents on the Continent, in Germany and France, and the price of land and houses in those countries. The housing situation here may be difficult for council house tenants, but it is a lot easier than it is on the Continent. Surely it is fair that a man earning £40 or £50 a week should pay a fair rent, and that out of that rent the council should take some money to help people in council houses who are not so well off. What is unfair about that?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: We shall be coming to what is fair and unfair later, and I hope the noble Viscount will be here to listen to what we have to say. When the noble Viscount talks about continental countries, it is about time that we in this country said that not only do we know how to do some things better, but we are going to continue in our way and are not going to be intimidated or influenced by what happens on the Continent.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to say a few words, partly in answer to ithe noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I am against Clause 1 because I think it is unnecessary. It is unnecessary, among other things, because in cases where council rents are too low it does not need this tangle of subsidies to remedy the position. It is possible to raise rents where they are really too low without having this complicated structure of subsidies. And these subsidies are socially most undesirable. Also, when analysed, they are intrinsically unfair as between the occupiers of rented homes and home owners. I am against this legislation because it is based overwhelmingly on the myth that there are thousands of council tenants who are very rich. I think the problem of housing is much too serious for it to be based on such a myth.
LORD HYLTON: I feel that the debate in this Committee has been most useful, and in particular we are indebted to the

233
noble Lords who have spoken from the Opposition Benches for pointing out the probable effect that inflation will have on the total of central Government subsidies for housing. Considerable light has been thrown on the exact meaning of "current prices" on page vii of the Financial Memorandum. This is something for which we must be grateful, but I think it gives rise to fear and apprehension. We have been assured by my right honourable friend Mr. Amery that it will be possible for all existing slums and unfit houses to be cleared by 1980. In aiming at that very desirable target, surely we must take into account the decline in the value of money, even in the short term between now and 1976, when perhaps, with luck, half of this very large task may have been accomplished. But one surely has to bear in mind the great length of time which elapses between the initiation of a slum clearance scheme and the actual completion of new houses and the moving in of tenants. That can easily be a period of five years, and if the subsidies are adequate at the beginning of that period it is well on the cards that they will be inadequate at the end of a five-year programme. I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench could allay a great deal of anxiety if he would assure us that there would be an annual review of the central Government subsidies for housing. I hope he will be able to give some reassurance on that score.
6.32 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: We have heard a lot of talk about subsidies and I expect we shall hear a lot more. But what is there that is particularly sinful about subsidies? Rich landowners get them; rich farmers get them; Rolls-Royce get them; Upper Clyde get them; owner-occupiers get them; owners of Stately homes get them: why should not tenants get them? Why are they to be discriminated against when other sections of the community are treated with generosity? And who are these council house tenants? Many of them are men who fought in the War; many of them are women who made sacrifices and suffered in the War. They are the people who are working in our factories and producing the wealth of this country. What is wrong in those people being treated with equal generosity to the
234
treatment meted out to those who have rich bank accounts?
Clause 1 is the very essence of this Bill. What it does, stated quite simply, is to take away £200 million a year from the council house tenants—the working—class section of the community—and make it available in the Exchequer to be handed out in doles to surtax payers in the next Budget. This clause is where the vampire really shows its teeth. Our Amendments—and they are reasonable Amendments—were aimed at trying to reduce the viciousness of the Bill as it now stands. The Government, I am sorry to say, have been recalcitrant from start to finish. I can quite understand that. It is typical of the arrogance they inherit from the Prime Minister who now, fresh from beating the trade unions to their knees, is eager to advance on his next objective: that of putting up the cost of living to millions of people "at a stroke". Over the next few years he is going to put two or three pounds a week on the rents of large numbers of council houses—and that is simply taking away from these people the tax remissions they have had during the last two years and in many cases taking away the wage increases that they have had during those years. And if we take into account, in addition to the increased rents, the increased rates these people will have to pay, the increased prices they will have to pay for food, shoes and clothing, the increased prices they have to pay for practically everything they buy, then I am afraid their wage increases have been wiped out just as their tax remissions have been wiped out. This seriously worries me.
What the Government have virtually done is this: they have told the trade union leaders and the shop stewards in every factory—some of them very moderate and reasonable men, some of them very wild men, some of them very mischievous men—to put in bigger and bigger wage demands from this moment onwards. In my view, that would not be good for the country. But if these people are going to get it into their minds that they cannot obtain economic justice through political channels, then they will pick up the only weapon left to them—the industrial weapon—which means strikes on a bigger scale than we have seen in the past. I should regret to see

235
that, but that is the way in which the Government, by these punitive measures—because this is not the first of them—are driving the thinking of many working people in this country.
Now let us have a look at the effect of this Bill on the economy. People are going to have less money with which to buy food; they are going to have less money with which to buy furniture, carpets, curtains and kitchen equipment. They are going to have less money with which to buy bicycles, motor bicycles and motor cars if you like—and all this is going to be reflected in the factories of this country, where production will slow down and unemployment increase. It is going to have one more effect: a number of these tenants, with increased rents and the prospects of still further increased rents as years go by—the first three years and then the next three years—are going to find themselves forced into buying houses. This, in the present inflationary state of the housing market, is going to force up prices higher and higher. This is not only my view but the view of people who are supposed to know even more about it than I do. Let us look at the Property Owners' Letter, which is a publication advertised regularly in the City pages of our newspapers. This publication advises speculators to buy up small houses in areas where there are many council tenants. These areas, it says, are most "fertile for investigation". It adds that the North-East generally has the largest ratio of council property, quoting Durham with 41 per cent., Northumberland with 44 per cent., and so on. It also points out to these would-be speculators that the new towns have a very large proportion of council housing.
Then, if we want to go to a more authoritative source, there is the Investors' Chronicle of April 21. It was talking about the rise in house prices, and it said:
"Council tenants seeing increased rents coming are approaching building societies for loans to buy."
Do not let it be thought that I am against home ownership; I have always owned my home. Unfortunately, I have not a mortgage on it so I cannot draw the subsidy the Government give to mortgage owners. But let the Investors' Chronicle continue. It says:
236
"One reason for at least postponing the new Housing Bill is that it may be directly responsible for increasing the pressures of demand on the present housing market. If and when the Bill becomes law applications for mortgages from this new source of home owners will become a flood. Societies' liquidity would be reduced. They may have to consider raising mortgage interest charges."
It is pretty obvious that if you force on to the house-purchasing market large numbers of council tenants, in addition to the huge queues that are waiting for every house that is built at the moment, up will go the prices: this Bill will become a Gazumper's Charter.
There is one more, final point I should like to make. This is about the sinister secrecy that has been preserved by the Government about the amount by which rents are going to rise. We have had many authorities, rent officers, planning officers and so forth saying that the rents may be doubled. Some Ministers have denied this. But the same Ministers have resolutely refused to tell us the exact figure by which these rents are going to rise. Judging from the Circular that has been "going the rounds" at the Ministry during the last few months, there are many districts in the country where the existing rent is certainly going to be doubled and in some cases is going to rise to a level in excess of double. If the Government will not tell us—it can tell us orally in the House or it can tell us in the form of a Schedule attached to the Bill—what the average rise in rents will be in every area in the country, then we are being asked to pass a Bill the effects of which we know not. I think it is an insult to any Parliamentary Chamber to be asked to pass a Bill where the consequential results are not known.
LORD WOLVERTON: I only want to say one word about the level of rents because I think the position has been very much exaggerated. The Minister has given one view and the Opposition have referred to 100 per cent. I took a little trouble, like a number of your Lordships, and went to my local authority a week or two ago. They told me at Newmarket that a good post-war house built about 10 years ago was renting for £3·38 a week. It has now gone up to £3·88 because they have moved towards the fair rent level. They think that the fair rent level would necessitate the figure rising to £4·50. That is a rise, when

237
the figure reaches fair rent level in another year's time, of £1·12. It is an average rise of 30 per cent. These are not my figures but the figures of the local authority, given by the clerk and the finance officer. The position has been greatly exaggerated. Some areas of course have extremely low rents, and there the rents will go up a lot more. The rents I have referred to might be called "middling "rents. They are neither the highest nor anything like the lowest. The position has been exaggerated and many tenants think that their rents are going to go up to double the present amount. I do not see it.
6.44 p.m.
LORD FISKE: I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, told us: that even if one looked into a crystal ball one really could not see beyond 1975, which is now less than three years away. That surprised me because I thought that Governments had resources to look rather more than three years ahead, and that if they were in any doubt about it they could at least make an inspired guess. Apparently this issue is so confused that not even an inspired guess can be made. I do not know whether it would help the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, if he went to Epsom to-morrow, where I am sure he would find many crystal balls and perhaps if he used enough silver he might get an answer concerning the position in more than three years' time.
However, to take the analogy of Epsom a little further, my complaint about this whole Bill is that the approach is blinkered. The Government in looking at the world of housing have not really looked at the world of housing; they have looked at the council tenant and at £350 million a year. I do not think this was the way to do it. I would agree with any Government in office which maintained that the reform of our housing finance is long overdue. But in saying that it is long overdue, remember that it is the whole of our housing finance that is long overdue for reform and not 50 per cent. of it. I would therefore ask your Lordships to look at the kind of money that is available for redistribution in the world of housing.
As I see it, the situation is something like this. Three hundred and fifty million
238
pounds a year is going out in housing subsidies to council tenants. Another £350 million a year is not being collected by the Inland Revenue from owner-occupiers. There is another figure, one which I cannot determine with any great accuracy but which seems to me to be about £200 million a year which is being paid out by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. We have so far a total of £900 million a year. There must be another £100 million a year that is in the profits that housing authorities will make on their housing account in the costs of administration, which are going to be enormous, and so on. In round figures, we could surely speak of having a figure of £1,000 million available to cushion the impact of modern housing on the whole of the population. I should have thought that out of that figure something could be left over for the Government as well. I am sure that that is one of the real objectives of all this legislation. Really what is needed is a fresh approach; not jiggling about with all the old devices we have used since the beginning of the century, but a new and fresh approach to the whole problem of housing finance.
While I am on my feet I want to underline one other point on which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has touched, because I am worried about how this will operate in the future. I have calculated to my own satisfaction (I should be prepared to tell any noble Lords who are interested how I arrived at it) that these rent increases which will come about will result in a figure of between 2 and 4 points on the cost-of-living Index for tenants. So we shall be arriving at a situation where tenants, whether council or private, will be carrying an extra 2 to 4 points of inflation beyond and above the rest of the population. Bear in mind that they will be the poorest part of the population who will be bearing this extra burden. It is only an Index, but it becomes something very potent when it comes to negotiating wage increases, because these are certainly the people who will need the wage increases first. Therefore, unless we are in future to have two indices, one for tenants and one for owners, which takes the common line so far and then divides, so that tenants get the credit for the extra money they will be paying out, then

239
we are going to put another great injustice on tenants—just tenants as such. If they are only on a par with the rest of the population, their greater need for a wage increase, as compared with their better-off brethren, will not show up. I should like to know whether the Government have given thought to this, and what they propose to do about it. But in the meantime my main contention is that I should have liked to see this clause taken away so that a new, vigorous and fresh look at the whole business of housing finance could be considered to last us for the next 50 years.
6.50 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: There is little that it is necessary for me to add to the excellent speeches which have been made by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy and other noble friends on this side of the Committee and, if I may say so, to the excellent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I hope that his suggestion for an annual review will fall on very fertile ground. I do not therefore wish to underline the points already made but will deal shortly with three separate points. First, I come back to the matter of figures. I must ask the Government to be good enough to think again about giving us figures going farther than three years ahead. I do not think I made myself absolutely clear in the suggestion I made about having examples of how the subsidy arrangements might work out in different authorities.
This clause sets out the subsidy structure and although there is no problem about the last category, the subsidy to be credited to the general rate fund—that is perfectly simple and unconditional—there are others which are conditional and their treatment is conditional. There could be a number of conditions arising and one would be helped if one knew which condition arose first and had priority of treatment. Therefore I repeat my request for examples to be set out in whatever form is convenient to the Government, either in a Statement, a letter or something in Hansard, so that one would know what the Government have in mind as to how the subsidy arrangement may work in a number of different and perhaps difficult cases. This clause sets out the subsidies which are provided in the Bill. When we consider the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the
240
Bill, it is right that we should consider what subsidies are provided and also what subsidies might have been provided.
The next point I want to make is with regard to the one glaring omission of the subsidy which ought to have been provided, which Governments of both Parties have previously provided, but which is absent from this Bill. I refer to the discretionary allowance, the discretionary subsidy, the discretion being exercised by the Minister broadly in hardship cases. If the noble Lord will look at Section 6 of the 1958 Act, or Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967, he will find clear examples of discretion being given to a Minister over and above the legislation provided in cases of individual hardship and individual authority hardship of making a special payment, albeit it a payment which may be limited as to amount, and that is very understandable.
The reason why I come to this is the helpful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who said that the whole purpose of the Bill was to concentrate help where it was needed and deal with particular cases of need in that form. Time is getting on and I do not want to give a number of examples, but I will give one example of Crawley Urban District Council, which has been in correspondence with the Department of the Environment. I have a letter sent by the town clerk and chief executive dated January 7 of this year. This is one of a series of letters addressed to the Government dealing with this specific point. What Crawley is saying is that it is typical—not unique—of all those cases where there is a small housing stock but a large housing need and, accordingly, a large housing programme, that the effect of the subsidy structure outlined in Clause 1 will be to put an impossible burden on the rates. The figures are set out with complete authority and nobody challenges them. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is this. Where there are circumstances like this (and there will be many cases; it is not uniquely Crawley, with its own particular position in relation to new towns and so on) and where there is a rigid structure of subsidies such as is provided in this clause, would it not be sensible to give the Minister discretion—not compulsion—in cases where he is satisfied

241
that there is real hardship and need and that the whole purpose of the Government's Bill is failing: that is, that help is not being given where it is particularly needed? Surely it is right in those circumstances to give the Minister the discretionary power to make a special payment, a special subsidy. You can call it what you like and you can limit it in any way that you like; so much per house or whatever form of limitation seems appropriate to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has reminded us that the whole purpose of the Bill is, in the view of the Government, to direct help where help is particularly needed. If there are on record authorities which are put in an impossible position because of the Bill, the Government ought to think of some method whereby they can continue to achieve their original purpose. I am not inventing a Labour purpose; I am talking about the Government's purpose and of the Government's being able to carry out their purpose by the simple and well-precedented method of giving discretionary powers to a Minister. Those powers are absent. I hope that the Minister will say that he will give consideration to introducing such a power at an appropriate time. I think I refer to the matter now quite properly, because it is the obvious omission from the list of subsidies. Perhaps I may read one sentence from the Crawley correspondence, which says:
"This is in fact exactly opposite to the Government's avowed intention to assist most those authorities with the greatest need."
That is almost word-for-word what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and others with equal authority have said as being the main purpose of the Government's Bill. I hope that we shall get some explanation why the Government are not repeating what Governments of all Parties have done in the past in making that provision.
The third point I want to touch on is whether the Government are proposing to continue with their general strategy on this Bill. This is the clause which outlines the strategy in the form of subsidies. It was drafted on the basis of fixed rent increases of a minimum of 50p per week per annum and of the corollary of a subsidy of £20 a year—and a withdrawal of that amount. Since the Bill was created on that basis there has developed a totally
242
new and fundamentally different situation; namely, the Birmingham one. At the Report stage in another place, the Government introduced powers to deal with the Birmingham situation. In other words, whereas this clause contemplates a given set of facts, a new set of facts, the Birmingham situation, has arisen and has been given legislative recognition by the Government. I could go into that in more detail, but I think it is well within the knowledge of your Lordships that Birmingham, at a convenient moment in relation to the local elections, decided that it could not put up rents in the way which the Government said it could do. The Government replied broadly, "That is O.K. If they have to be smaller increases, then they have to be smaller increases", and the Government have taken power so to provide in the Bill. This Part of the Bill was drafted on the basis of a different approach, and I am asking whether the Government really intend to carry through this Bill on the original, now outmoded, now punctured, strategy as outlined in Part I of the Bill.
7.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We have had a fairly lengthy debate on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill, and we had a very interesting debate on the Amendments to the clause before that. I am impressed with the obviously deeply felt sincerity of the noble Lord and I think that almost everything he said will come up several times again in the course of our debates, so I hope he will excuse me if I do not go in any great detail into the points that he raised.
There is one point that I should like to pick out. He talked about a penal tax upon local authority tenants. What we have to ask ourselves is whether it really is a penal tax. This is what represents our view on this side of the House—whether it is really a penal tax to ask people to pay for the value of services they receive if they can afford to pay. This is an issue which we will come back to again and again so I do not need to press it but merely to express it.
May I take, for convenience, the points which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has made. First of all, I shall be very glad to find out whether I can provide more useful figures and find an appropriate way in which to do so. The circumstances of local authorities vary so

243
widely that it will be difficult to give typical examples and one may have to give synthetic examples. The second point concerns what the noble Lord described as the glaring omission of discretionary subsidies in hardship cases. As we go through the Bill I think noble Lords will he surprised to find what great flexibility there is on the part of the Secretary of State to vary the percentages in different cases. This is governed largely by Clause 16. Perhaps I may join to that observation the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Hylton and the noble Lord. Lord Fiske, which I think were based to some extent on a misunderstanding of the way these subsidies are going to be paid in future. Where you have deficit subsidies that are a percentage of the expenditure, it must follow that as the cost of things goes up the percentage of the cost that has to be met will also go up. We have talked a great deal during discussion of Clause 1 of the Bill on the forecast of cost over a period of years of this system. The reason why we cannot forecast cost is because it is so terribly difficult to forecast how prices and costs are going to move in the future. Nor is it easy to forecast exactly what needs are going to arise from time to time in particular authorities. Again, if I may say so, I want to refer to these points only in passing as we shall be coming back to them from time to time.
The third point which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, raised was whether there was a change in strategy. The answer is that there is no change of strategy. Clause 63(4) to which we shall come in due course deals with the situation which the noble Lord raised and enables these matters to be considered on their merits by the Secretary of State.
To the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who introduced this discussion, may I say that there are really two aspects of this Bill. The first is giving help to individuals who are in need and expecting those who can afford to pay, to pay the full cost of services; and the other is giving help to areas that are in need—he made reference to the areas of stress. I am sure we shall find, as we look at the various subsidies that are outlined in skeleton form in Clause 1, that the main emphasis on expenditure will be on helping those authorities which have housing problems.
244
If they have a big housing problem and a lot of housing construction to carry out they will be the beneficiaries of subsidies. As I said before, we shall look at the deficit on the housing revenue account and it is to that deficit that the subsidies outlined in Clause 1 are directed. There really is nothing in Clause I except a statement of what the subsidies are—the bare bones of them to which we shall be putting flesh as we go through the Bill—together with a statement as to who is to pay the subsidies, to whom and when they will start to be payable. This is what we have been talking about on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
The noble Lord says—and I have every sympathy with him here—that we must have more local authority building. That is very likely true in some areas, but not in all areas. As I have said, the purpose of the Bill is to concentrate assistance on those areas and those individuals who need assistance. I would add only this, because I think it is very important: local authorities will judge for themselves what number of houses they need. The reason why I was reluctant to give the assurance which the noble Lord sought on the last Amendment on which we divided was that the consultation by the Secretary of State was consultation about a decision of the Secretary of State where that decision might adversely affect a local authority. In that case he was to consult the local authority. I find it a little odd—I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying this—to compare that with the case where the Secretary of State was asked to consult with the local authority when the decision was that of the local authority itself, and where, if the local authority has a particular need, it will come to the Secretary of State and ask, no doubt, for a variation in the percentage subsidies.
These are matters that we shall come to as we go through the Bill. I quite understand if noble Lords feel that they ought to take strong measures about this; but I hope that they will not, because, as I have said, this is merely an expository clause and when we come to consider the various clauses in the Bill I hope that noble Lords will begin to see their merit.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: When the noble Lord speaks about tenants of local

245
authority houses paying the full cost, I think that if it can be agreed that the fair rent as laid down in the Bill will frequently be in excess of that full cost we shall avoid getting at cross purposes. I think I am right in saying as a fact that the fair rent is not based on the full cost; it is computed in a different way. That is why we are objecting so strongly and why I referred to a "penal tax", because the profit made out of those paying a fair rent will in part be used to pay the subsidies to the other tenants.
I have no wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly at this stage and I think perhaps it would be as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said we shall be returning to this matter later on, if we were to leave it there for the time being.
Clause 1 agreed to.
House resumed.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS BILL
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Indication of origin of certain imported goods]:
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("consisting of the word 'imported'")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to this Amendment the first point I should like to make is that this is a Bill of very limited scope, and although it may be of some value to consumers it is most certainly not, as has been claimed, a major measure of consumer protection. All it ensures is that where foreign goods are sold with a mark or name which can imply that they were made in the United Kingdom when in fact they were not so made, the country of origin or the fact that they are imported must be stated. When the Bill was received from another place it required that the country of origin of the goods to which it applied should be
246
stated. However, a Government Amendment, passed at the Committee stage by a majority of only 84 to 63, watered down this requirement so that it would be sufficient to state that the goods had been imported, without giving the country of origin. My Amendment seeks to put things back as they were and insists that the country of origin must be stated; not simply that the goods are imported.
I am sure many noble Lords will have read an article in The Times of May 18, but I should like to quote briefly from it, as it sets out some of the position rather clearly. The article says:
"Unfortunately there are reasonable grounds to fear that a Government amendment, carried during the Lords Committee stage … seriously weakens the Bill."
The article goes on to say that the Department of Trade and Industry
"firmly opposed all efforts to retain marks of origin in any shape or form, but under heavy pressure from interested trade associations and consumer bodies, the Government decided to support the present Bill.
"Undoubtedly there is still a certain amount of opposition to the proposed legislation from the Department's die-hard free-traders, but it is worth pointing out that it echoes measures currently in force in the European Economic Community and the United States. Much of the pressure for the amendment seems to have come from the canned and preserved food industry."
My Lords, I want to make it quite clear that I do not advocate marking on all goods the country of origin. In a recent survey, 95 per cent. of consumers thought that a statement of country of origin was important and that it should be given where possible. In many cases consumers get little or no information about the performance of goods at the point of sale, and country of origin can often give useful pointers on this and on the need to check up on after-sales service facilities, which of course if the goods are imported may sometimes not be so good. Some countries have a particularly good reputation for certain types of goods. For example, Japanese cameras are, in general, very good value for money and have to meet certain Government quality requirements before being exported. I think that everyone, even those who oppose this Amendment, will agree that country of origin is very important for wines. As with wines, so with many other perishable goods, such as fruit. Another example—but not perishable—is canned fish, because there is no

247
other indication of what one is buying or how it will taste. But the Government tell us that it is with just these goods that packaging firms do not wish to give country of origin. Apparently the sources of supplies vary and they find it difficult to arrange for different markings on the packages. It is quite clear that if this Amendment is not accepted the consumer has no hope of having country of origin shown, even voluntarily, in one of the very areas where one feels it is most important.
Finally, may I put the issue before your Lordships quite simply and, I believe, fairly? If you think that some—and I repeat, some; not universal—marking of origin for certain goods is desirable, then I think you should vote for this Amendment. If by any chance it causes any difficulties with some industries, the Bill allows for some exceptions to be made by an Order in Council. Therefore let us show on which side we are counted. Because, make no mistake! my Lords, marking orders are not popular with the Government, and unless we show here that marking orders are, in certain cases, both necessary and desirable I am afraid that we have virtually no hope whatever of seeing any of these orders reinstated. I believe that there were some 100 or so cases where the country of origin was compulsory before the introduction of the Trade Descriptions Bill, and we have always been told that if a good enough case could be made the marking of the country of origin would be made compulsory. But, my Lords, I am afraid that, however good a case was made from the consumer angle, unless we pass this Amendment the Government are stubbornly resisting any argument as strong enough to convert them. I beg to move.
7.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, in moving this Amendment the noble Viscount has made it quite clear that his aim is simply to reverse the decision which this House took at Committee stage to allow the use of the word "imported" as an alternative to indicating the actual country of origin. The arguments he has advanced were substantially those that were recited and rejected on an earlier occasion, so I do not propose to repeat them. This Amendment is strange,
248
and I believe defective for its purpose. It would leave the paragraph reading:
"(a) the name or mark is accompanied by a conspicuous indication of origin or of an indication of the country in which the goods IA ere manufactured or produced."
The second of the remaining "ofs" would make it virtually impossible to construe the meaning of the amended paragraph; and even if that "of" were omitted, the effect would be to allow as alternatives: first, an indication—not necessarily conspicuous—of the country of origin; or, secondly, a conspicuous "indication of origin"—of unspecific form but by clear inference from the word "or" not an indication of the country of origin. I do not know what any court of law could make of these ambiguities and doubts. For this reason alone, I should have to ask the House to reject the Amendment. Nevertheless, I think you would wish to have my views as the proposer of the earlier Amendment which this seeks in part to reverse on the principles at issue.
My Lords, I well know the sincerity of the noble Viscount's feelings and I appreciate the way he has moved his Amendment, but I must point out that his approach reveals a misconception of the purpose and effect of this Bill and also of the basic principles which should properly govern the imposition of compulsory origin marking. There are several arguments for origin marking, some good, some bad, but quite distinct from each other in their motivation and their implications.
I will start with its value as a counter to indirect false indications of origin. For it was that purpose—no more, no less, which, as the sponsors here and in the other place have consistently made clear—motivated the introduction of this Bill. They recognised the risk that shoppers will take a "United Kingdom name or mark", as the Bill defines that term, as an indication of British origin unless that inference is clearly contradicted. They recognised that, notwithstanding the wide-ranging prevision of the 1968 Act against misrepresentations of origin, there was uncertainty as to how and where those provisions would operate in this particular area. And so, with the Government's full support, they brought forward this Bill to clarify the situation and thus to ensure the better protection of the consumer against this

249
particular form of false inference of origin. That basic purpose is quite simply to put shoppers on notice that certain goods bearing United Kingdom names or marks were not, as they might have supposed, made in this country. And to achieve that contradiction of the false inference, it is as a matter of cold simple logic unnecessary to require any more than the declaration "imported".
Some Members of this House will go on to argue that origin marking should not be regarded solely as a counter to deception; that it can have a more positive role to play in giving consumers reasonably reliable guidance as to the quality or characteristics of goods, or in putting them on notice of the need to make special inquiries about the availability of spares and service. We may quite legitimately differ in our view of whether or not origin marking is a valid guide—or the most appropriate guide—to consumer choice in respect of this, that, or the other class of goods. But where a case is genuinely made out on those grounds then it seems to me that there are three propositions which become incontestable. The first is that we have a case in which the Secretary of State can and should exercise his existing powers under Section 8 of the 1968 Act to require that class of goods to be origin marked. The second is that in such a case it is hardly conceivable that the Section 8 requirement should be anything less than an indication of the actual country of origin. And the third is that in such a case it would clearly be right that the requirement should extend to all goods of that imported class and not simply—as is inevitable in the context of the present Bill—only to those which bear United Kingdom names or marks.
My Lords, we cannot have this both ways. Information about origin is far from universally a sound guide to consumer choice. Where it is, the need can be met, and would far more effectively be met, by a Section 8 order; and it is quite unrealistic to talk of tackling the need under this Bill whose requirements would at once extend unnecessarily to goods for which origin was not a reliable guide to quality, yet fall short of application to all goods of the kind for which the information was a reliable guide.
250
I have thought it right to spend a little time on this analysis because it seems to me that it is only by keeping these basic facts in mind that we can sensibly judge whether or not there is a case for requiring express country of origin statements under this Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, gave us some examples of what he had in mind. I cannot imagine good wine coming into this country without an origin mark on it. I cannot imagine Japanese cameras or Swiss watches coming in without such a mark, because the producers are rightly proud of the quality of their product and they are proud to mark it with its origin. But my conclusion, as I hope I have made clear, is that there is no such general case because first as a counter to the false inference of United Kingdom origin which may be drawn from a United Kingdom name or mark—a counter which it is the declared and limited object of the sponsors of this Bill to provide—the word "imported" is clearly a fully adequate alternative. Second, where origin information is genuinely helpful to consumer choice, the alternative approach of an order under Section 8 of the main Act is not only available but the more appropriate and far more effective means of meeting that need.
Those are not simply the conclusions of the moment. I really must remind some of the noble Lords and Baronesses opposite that their own Party introduced the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, and I would simultaneously remind my noble friends that it was supported by the then Opposition. That Act, so far from imposing general origin-marking requirements, was a deliberate step in the opposite direction by providing for the repeal of existing requirements and, by the terms of its Section 8, putting any future imposition of such requirements firmly on a selective basis, geared to the principle that they should be necessary or expedient in the buyer's interest—I repeat, the buyer's interest—and not simply to the thought that he would rather like to have the information.
My Lords, so far from criticising that bipartisan 1968 approach, I strongly endorse it. It is wrong in principle that a statutory requirement should be imposed unless there is real evidence, which certainly does not exist across the board

251
in the case of origin-marking, that it will meet a genuine and serious need. To impose it does not serve the true interests of consumers, whoever else may stand to benefit; and there is a particular need in this kind of field to avoid what may be, or may be construed by others to be, an unwarranted obstacle to international trade. I have earlier reminded the House that as a matter of export self-interest, as well as on grounds of principle, this country has encouraged and subscribed to recommendations in GATT and EFTA to the effect that compulsory origin-marking should be limited to cases where it is indispensable for the information of the ultimate purchaser; and I need hardly repeat that our ability to influence others to respect that principle depends on the extent to which we ourselves observe it. If we require simple origin-marking without special justification, what will other countries say when we object to their requirements, which may be really onerous, including perhaps marking of an unusual nature in the language of the country of destination?
I repeat, my Lords, the Government's conclusion that where knowledge of the actual country of origin would be genuinely helpful to the consumer, the only proper and effective response is an order under Section 8 of the main Act. It is a concept which has no place in this Bill, which ought to be confined—as its sponsors have always argued—to countering false inferences of United Kingdom origin which may be drawn from the presence of United Kingdom names or marks—for which the word "imported" is clearly sufficient.
It has been alleged that by accepting the adequacy of that alternative marking, the Government have made a sudden about-face for inadequate reasons and sold the consumer down the river. That accusation is quite unwarranted. The simple truth is that, as a Private Member's Bill, this was not preceded by the extensive departmental consultations with affected interests which normally go on before a Government measure is introduced. In these circumstances we assumed at the outset that, except in one or two minor cases, such as blends or mixtures, if people had to apply indications of origin anyway, there would not be any significant problems if they were required
252
to state the actual country. It is common experience that affected interests are surprisingly slow to recognise how proposed legislation will affect them. It was not until after the Bill had left the other place —indeed, not until after Second Reading in your Lordships' House—that the strength of representations convinced us that there were problems far more serious than we had initially suspected—and not simply minor inconvenience—in disallowing the alternative marking "Imported". Faced with the prospect of these real and potential difficulties, we could not be confident that specific relaxations by direction would, in terms of speed and number, provide an administratively sensible and practicable answer. Nor could we justify, whether in terms of potential harm to the United Kingdom, or internationally, an obligation which presented difficulties unwarranted by the express, and in my contention the only valid, object of the Bill—namely, to counter false indications of origin.
My Lords, since leaving the Cross-Benches I have rapidly found that it is the fate of Ministers to have the worst possible construction placed upon their actions. That is something which my shoulders are broad enough to bear, though I confess that I was somewhat peeved to see the Shirt, Collar and Tie Manufacturers' Association seek to magnify a simple answer to a technical point on the meaning of the words in the Bill by taking one sentence quoted out of context in a three-page letter of laborious explanation and magnifying it into a renewed assurance that all goods would have to be marked with their country of origin. The truth is, as I have said, that we came to see that there were unforeseen difficulties in the face of which it would have been quite wrong to adhere to a formula which the proper object of the Bill could not possibly expect. I adhere to that view, and even if the noble Viscount's Amendment were not defective technically I should still feel bound to ask the House to reject it on the principle which it involves.
7.33 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. I rather expected the Minister to say that it was defective. Those of us who have sat on both sides of

253
the House get used to this as an explanation. But I am beginning to wonder whether the Minister can explain to me whether the Bill is going to be defective. I notice that the Bill, which we still have in its original form, is described as:
"An Act to require certain names and marks applied to imported goods to be accompanied by an indication of origin."
I am not a grammatical expert (although I did teach English at one stage), but I am not sure that using the word "imported" is the same as an indication of origin. The Minister nods his head. That is very interesting. Whether the legal definition would be accepted would be equally interesting.
The Minister has pointed out to us that the purpose of this very narrow Bill was—and I use his own words in Committee stage:
"… to prevent any possibility that people are positively induced to buy goods by an erroneous supposition … that they are in fact British made. This is the central purpose of the Bill …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/5/72, c. 1311.]
This we all accepted. I was one of those who were very disappointed that the Bill was as narrow as it was. But half a loaf was better than no bread, and we were willing to take the Bill, accepting of course, as we have all done, that if we want marking orders made they can be made under Section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act—though I would remind the Minister that in fact no marking orders have so far been made, and at the time the Act was brought to the House it was certainly envisaged that marking orders would be made when the Bill finally came to the point of time when this would be necessary. So this is really no answer. We know the powers are there. We recognise that this Bill does not encompass the important point about certain goods being marked with the country of origin.
But since it is a narrow Bill. it was rather horrifying to discover that the Government introduced an Amendment to weaken still further this already very narrow and weak Bill. The Minister is rather surprised that he has been attacked about this, but surely he must have expected this. The Bill had gone through all its stages in the other place. I cannot think that these keen lobbyists were
254
not equally busy in the Commons. Why they waited until the Bill came to the Lords is rather a mystery to me, and why in fact the Board of Trade did not discover that this was going to be of some difficulty administratively again puzzles me.
We are told that the customer does not mind if goods are only to be marked "imported". The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said that it is not really important to the customer to know where it comes from. I may be a very difficult shopper, but if I were buying a tin of canned potatoes—heaven help me! I hope that I never do—I should want to know that it was imported from Ireland and not from China. It is not that I have anything against China, but that it seems to me Irish potatoes would be better than Chinese.
So I think merely to have the word "imported" is a piece of nonsense that does not reveal anything to the customer. The customer is the individual we are all being so conscientious about. We are not talking at the moment about the needs of the manufacturer but about the needs of the customer, though I think the Minister has indicated that this is a very small part of his thinking. At Committee stage I mentioned the fact that in tableware and cooking-ware there are world-wide regulations for the control of toxic emissions from glazes and decorations, and these people have reason to believe that the Government will be forced to consider means by which they will be able to trace the offending manufacturers of these goods. How are they going to do this if there is no definition of origin, if a particular item appears to be marked with a United Kingdom mark and it simply says "imported"? Where is it imported from, and how do they discover this?
I would return, although it is not right to make a long speech at this stage of the Bill, to the constitutional point. This was a Private Member's Bill which had gone through the other place, the elected House, as we are constantly reminded by them and by Members of your Lordship's House. In this House a major change was made in the Bill. The Minister may decry this, but this does affect the total understanding of the Bill. I would also quote from The Times. I believe they

255
have mentioned this several times. I thought they put if far better than I could in the same article mentioned by the noble Viscount:
"There can be little doubt that the Amendment will allow unscrupulous businesses greater freedom to evade the intention of the Bill. The word 'Imported' and a slightly misleading brand name, say a Scandinavian sounding one, could be used for a cover for a shoddy product from an entirely different source."
In any case—this is very important—those who base themselves on free trade may reflect that free trade implies not only easier access to national markets; it also means freedom of choice for the consumer.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, to be consistent with what I have said and thought on the Committee stage, I must say I find myself considerably in sympathy with the Amendment. This is a peculiar Bill, because, as Lady Phillips said, it is a Private Member's Bill having the support of the Government. It has been changed a good deal in its character since it came into this House. I have much sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, because curiously enough this Bill deals only with a portion of the imported merchandise. That makes the situation more complicated.
We must all remember that on the Committee stage, Lord Macpherson gave a very good example of why the overall requirement of indicating origin would be inconvenient. He mentioned foodstuffs. In chemicals it has still more difficulty. As was said in Committee, the feeling of the country has been expressed by a very definite, overwhelming majority of consumer opinion in favour of the marking of everything. It can, of course, be argued, as I think Lord Sainsbury did, that there may be disadvantages in giving the country of origin because, to take the example Lady Phillips gave, some people may not like goods from China, others may not like goods from Russia or any other source. I should not have thought that that was very strong reasoning, but I can see that it might carry some weight with the Government.
This Private Member's Bill, brought in by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has now had further explanation and emphasis by the Minister in the
256
light of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I found myself unconvinced during the Committee stage, but though I expressed myself very strongly I abstained from voting. One cannot foresee the fate of this Amendment, but at this stage it is only right that we should say, "We must examine the explanation which the Minister has given us", though I must admit that I did not find it entirely convincing. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that in the U S.A. a requirement has recently been imposed which lays down that all goods shall bear the mark of origin. He laid particular emphasis on the fact that under Section 8 of the Act the Minister has power to issue orders covering certain types of merchandise. I have no idea what proportion of the total merchandise imported into this country would fall into one category or another, and the Minister may be able to enlighten us about that, but surely the fact that the Minister has those powers should make it much more easy to accept that the Bill should contain a requirement about the origin. I hope that at some stage—perhaps not today, but subsequently—the Minister will give us some explanation about why those powers should not be invoked.
Of course, there is the point that the powers in this Bill could be criticised since they introduce an element of protection which infringes the GATT. But according to the advice which I have been able to get from trade advisers, it will not contravene the GATT if the Minister does as the Bill provides. Even if it did, need we, rather cravenly, accept compulsion to sacrifice employment in this country when it has been demonstrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and others, that a vast inflow of merchandise from certain foreign countries could do a great deal to reduce employment here? If that situation can be avoided, it is surely natural that many of us, at least, will be in sympathy with the Amendment. I suppose that all that Back-Benchers can do is to point out the difficulties, and it is up to the Government to find a way of circumventing them and producing results. I do not want to go over a lot of the ground which we covered in Committee, but I must say that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, have set the Minister the task of giving us a clearer explanation

257
why the requirements of considerable sections of industry in the country, of complete marking of the country of origin, should not be met.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I have often stood up in your Lordships' House to differ very strongly from the noble Lord, Lord Barn by, and it is a particular pleasure this evening to agree with almost everything he said. I am in a state of utter confusion. Every speaker begins by talking about goods which have a United Kingdom mark, but which are masquerading as United Kingdom goods when they really are not, and ends by talking about the problem of marking imported goods with the country of origin. May I say, for the twentieth or thirtieth time, that we are not in the least concerned with the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Phillips which was defeated last time, which suggested that all imported goods should bear the place of origin. We are concerned with a very specific and small group of goods which have a United Kingdom mark but which do not emanate in the United Kingdom.
I was hoping for a handsome apology from the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, because during the Committee stage he shut me up most effectively. I said that I had missed half the debate, and he told me that the question I had asked had already been answered, and said that I should sit down, so I did. But then I looked through Hansard and I found that the question had not been answered at all. The noble Earl gave examples of goods which could not possibly be United Kingdom marked, such as fruits from Canada, and said how difficult it was for a man who was canning fruits if he had to get them from somewhere else. The Caribbean example was also given. One had a picture of passion fruit grown in Huddersfield, which seemed to be absolutely meaningless. These foreign fruits do not come into this country with a United Kingdom mark, or they ought not to.
If somebody wants to sell me salmon under the title "Scotch salmon", then according to the Trade Descriptions Act it must be Scotch salmon. I admit that the advertisers have entirely destroyed the meaning of the word "finest", and they will say that it is "finest Scotch salmon". Nobody expects the word
258
'finest" to mean anything, but we expect both "Scotch" and "salmon" to have an exact meaning. I am entirely unable to understand what the argument is about. If a Bill comes to this House and a fundamental Amendment is made by the Government, then they must give some reason for it. I should like to have an example of something which presents greater difficulty than merely a question of printers' ink, in showing the country of origin other than by simply stating "Imported". I am still waiting for that, and I am waiting also for the apology which I look forward to having during the course of the debate.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: May I try to answer the last point about the United Kingdom mark? As I understand the position, it is not a matter of confusing or trying to mislead the British public with a mark which could be thought to be a British mark. Most of the goods to which the noble Lord referred are imported under a trade mark, and the trade mark might be that of "Caribbean citrus". The trade mark is registered in this country and will therefore come under the Act. It is not proposed to mislead anybody in any way, but because the trade mark is registered in this country it will come under that description.
I do not propose to go over all the arguments which I put on Second Reading, but it appears to me from the Press that the textile trade is particularly worried about this Bill and about the question of origin. As I understand the Bill, if the material for a shirt is made in Hong Kong but is made into a shirt in this country, then that shirt can be sold as a British product. With or without the Amendment, that will still be the position, because the shirt will have been altered from the original imported material. I do not think that the shirt manufacturer is going to get any protection from the new Amendment if it comes in. I think those are the main points that I wanted to make, because I do not wish to repeat what I said on Second Reading.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD BARNBY: With no discourtesy, I rose before the noble Lord sat down, before he had regained his seat.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will sit down. I am very sorry to interrupt, but I think the sense of the House is that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, had risen to her feet and was about to speak when my noble friend got up. I think it is only right that the noble Baroness should be heard.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. She will have noted my gesture was that I was turning to my noble friend and that I was blind to my right eye and could not see her. I readily extend to her my apologies, and also to my noble friend the Deputy Leader.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I shall be very brief. I believe that customers should have marks of origin on their goods. This is something I have always felt. Of one thing I am quite sure: I do not imagine the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, requires my sympathy, but I think the Department of Trade and Industry have got themselves into an awful mess over this Amendment and that it has really descended on to the shoulders of the noble Earl. There are one or two points which puzzle me very much indeed. I will not go into the matter of what the shirt manufacturers have had to say, because the noble Earl has explained that the sentence was taken out of context. I am quite sure that that was the case if he says so. But I really find it rather difficult, because, as I understand it, in another place Mr. Peter Amery, the Under-Secretary, opposed an Amendment to allow the word "Imported" as an acceptable substitute for a precise statement of the country of origin, on the grounds that it seriously weakened the Bill. He went on to say—and I think I am right here—that the mark "Foreign" does not give that clear indication which the consumer has the right to expect if we go forward with the Bill.
We then find, here in this House, that the noble Earl comes forward with an Amendment which says exactly the oppo
260
site. He said—and I take his point—that at the time when this Bill commenced its passage in another place, as it was a Private Member's Bill the Department had not (if I have the words aright) really given it sufficient attention, or had not been able to consider it sufficiently, to see where possible snags might arise. I think that was very bad of the Department of Trade and Industry; but let us leave that for a moment. If we could move on from that, it seems very difficult to accept, when it has been through another place, and particularly when it has been right through the Committee stage in another place, that the Department of Trade and Industry have still not considered what possible snags may arise.
What I want to ask the noble Earl is this. Perhaps the noble Earl may be able to help us when he replies, but apart from the much-quoted canned food manufacturers (and that information I got from the Press) I have not found any industry which supports the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl, and it very much disturbs me. I should like to know, if the noble Earl is in a position to help us to-night, whether he can tell us what is the weight of opinion in industry which has caused the Department of Trade and Industry to introduce this Amendment. I have not heard one single example. As the noble Earl said and as my noble friend Lady Phillips understood, it may be that in Opposition one does not always draft an Amendment exactly in tune with what the Government of the day would wish, down to the last comma and the last full stop, but I feel it would be useful if the Government were to consider this whole aspect of the matter.
There is really considerable disquiet, and I do not think that the noble Earl has dealt with it. May I say, with respect, that he read a statement that he had been given and which he had to read. I am sure one has to do that sort of thing from the Front Bench; but I do not think it got us very far. I should therefore like to support the Amendment which has been moved, but I really should like some information. Could the noble Earl tell us what is the weight of opinion which has caused the Government to introduce this Amendment, to which so many of us have taken objection?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, denied that the Government were in any way guilty of a volte-face, but, as my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has said, this is a completely different line of aproach from the one adopted by them in the other place. It is often very easy, I know, to confront Governments with what they have said on previous occasions, sometimes in previous Parliaments, as the noble Earl did to us. But it was only last April—on April 14 last—when the noble Earl's opposite number in the other place, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I thought gave a very good argument precisely demolishing the arguments put forward by the noble Earl to-day. Perhaps the two briefs were written by different sections of this enormous conglomerate of trade and industry; I do not know. But here is a case where the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. In the other place, the Government spokesman said:
"Although they would be more convenient for traders and some manufacturers, this proposal ignores the fact that the public are generally suspicious of wider terms or connotations such as 'foreign' or 'Empire', which terms were permitted under the old Merchandise Marks Act. Many people felt that these were cloaks under which a variety of origins could be hidden. For example, there may well be a lot of difference, in the public's mind, between a radio made, say, in Germany and one made in Hong Kong"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 14/4/72, col. 1596.]—
and that, my Lords, seems to me to be absolutely the nub of the matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, quoted from The Times of May 18. I should like also to quote from another article in the business section of The Times of May 31, which reads as follows:
"Lord Limerick's amendment to the Bill provides three main grounds for disquiet. First, from the department's earlier statements, it seriously weakens a Bill, primarily intended for consumer protection. Second, from the department's statements on the subject, it was drafted after representation from only one sector of industry—the canned food manufacturers and importers. Third, the decision to put forward the amendment was taken after a very short period of consideration".
As my noble friend Lady Burton said, one wonders how many representations have been made to the Government in this very short time, and from which sections of industry they have come. What I sus-
262
pect, really, is that the Government do not want to have marking regulations. For some reason that they will not tell us, they do not want to do this by Statutory Instrument, as is required by the Bill.
The Amendment may be defective; I do not know. It does not look defective to me, but we will have to study what the noble Earl has said. It is always very easy, I think, to prove that Amendments are defective; but I do not think that is a reason for rejecting them. The important thing is the spirit of the Amendment. What the House ought to do, if I may respectfully suggest it, is to come to a decision on the spirit of the Amendment and then, if it is carried, as I hope it will be, it will be for the Government to put it right.
8.0 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall be brief because so much has been said in this debate; but there arc one or two points I should like to make. There are certain things in the Bill which noble Lords may or may not understand but one or two things have been clearly said to-night which I think are very good; and they are things which people outside do not seem to realise. First, as was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and others, this Bill is a limited Bill, limited in Clause 1(a) and (b) and in Clause 2. It does not, and cannot, provide for the marking of all goods coming into this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who is entitled to her point of view, said that she is in favour of all goods being marked so that the buyer will know where they come from. I do not share that view. I think that the important thing is to get as much trade as possible with all countries, for that is to our benefit; and anything that in any way impedes that trade or makes it difficult is a mistake. However, I think that in dealing with goods which are United Kingdom-marked and could be interpreted as United Kingdom-manufactured but are not, the Bill is dealing with an important point and I strongly support it.
I also strongly supported the 1968 Bill which was put forward in this House by the Government of the Party opposite and which was supported by my noble friends on this site. In that Bill, as we all know, the question of origin marking

263
was practically done away with. In its place was put Section 8 which provides that special cases could be dealt with under the Act. I support that. That is the way to deal with the matter. I do not think that the best way is to have origin marking on everything coming into this country. In any case that could not possibly be done by this Bill; it would have to be done by a separate Bill altogether; so it is out of the question. I think that by allowing goods to come into this country one is allowing an increase of trade and making a wider market for our goods. It is a simple argument and it is one which works. One does not want to impede trade. I personally am not in favour of doing anything which could restrict goods coming into the country and thereby limiting the consumer's choice. I have spoken about mistaken identity and that is dealt with in the Bill.
In the clause that we are discussing it is perfectly possible not only to use the word "imported" but also to indicate the country in which the goods are manufactured or produced. We have these two alternatives; whoever wished to do so could put on the goods the word
"imported" or the name of the country from which the goods have come. I agree that there can be great prestige in so naming Japanese cameras, Irish linen, Israeli citrus fruits and so on. That is done now; and often it is done by the country that exports the goods. There is no reason why it should not be done; and as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, displaying the country of origin can sometimes be a good selling point. So that can be done and the Bill does not stop it. It allows a variety of ways of dealing with the matter. I think therefore that the clause is drafted on the right lines and that it would be a mistake to make it compulsory for all goods to be marked. I propose to stick to the words of the Bill because in them is the variety necessary. In my opinion they cover the point about goods which are masquerading in any way as being made in the United Kingdom. I think it would be a retrograde step to do anything but support the Bill as it stands.
8.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their, Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Avebury, L.

Energlyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Bacon, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Barrington, V.

Foot, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Birk, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Goodman, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Hale, L.

Somers, L.

Byers, L.

Hanworth, V. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Strang, L.

Champion, L.

Hood, V.

Tanlaw, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jacques, L.

Wade, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Killearn, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrier, L. [Teller.]

Limerick, E.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Lothian, M.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Molson, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Bradford, E.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L.

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

Orr-Ewing, L.

Digby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hertford, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Elles, Bs.

Kemsley, V.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs. [Teller]

Sandys, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wolverton, L.

Savile, L.

Teviot, L.

Young, Bs.

Sherfield, L.

Vernon, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Vivian, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

8.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out from ("that") in line 9 to end of line 16 and insert ("the interests of persons in the United Kingdom to whom goods of any description may be supplied or to whom goods may he supplied under any designation would not be materially impaired by his doing so and that").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to direct exemption from or relaxation of the basic requirements of the Bill in cases where, although no significant difficulties would arise in meeting those requirements, compliance would be of no particular benefit to purchasers of the goods. To that end, it removes one of the existing limitations on his power; that is, that he may act only where satisfied that,
"owing to the special circumstances of any trade, difficulties would arise".
At the same time, however, it tightens his duty as respects the interests of persons to whom goods are supplied; instead of merely having regard for those interests, he is required to be satisfied that they would not be materially impaired by his direction—though now only as respects persons "in the United Kingdom". The change does not preclude him from acting in cases where significant difficulties would arise from compliance, but, in effect, he must have regard not for the difficulties as such but for their likely repercussions on the interests of customers; that is, by interrupting or reducing supplies of the goods in question.
My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, raised the question of the effect that the Bill would have on books and periodicals. There was, I think, no dissent among your Lordships from her proposition that here, for a variety of reasons, including existing marking requirements, was a special case in which the interests of consumers did not require the provisions of the Bill to apply. I expressed the Government's sympathy with that view, and when the noble
266
Baroness was good enough to accept my suggestion that an express exemption was not the most appropriate way of dealing with this, I undertook to have another look at what is now Clause 1(5) before Report stage to ensure that its terms would present no bar to an appropriate exempting or relaxing direction in this or in comparable cases.
My conclusion, unfortunately, is that Clause 1(5) as it stands is not in the right form to allow of such a direction. The problem can be very simply expressed. The present wording debars the Secretary of State from making a direction unless he is satisfied that,
"owing to the special circumstances of any trade, difficulties would arise".
I am advised that, given the presence of those words, and the narrow interpretation likely to be placed on them, it would not be proper for my right honourable friend to proceed on the basis of mere inconvenience in complying with the Bill, nor merely of any nonsensical consequences of doing so. There would have to exist some special, distinctive, and more serious difficulty than Parliament might reasonably have expected to follow from such an enactment. The problem therefore arises that if a man is preparing to print and bind a book or periodical, and in the process to impress upon it at various points United Kingdom names or marks, there is no particular "difficulty" in arranging to impress accompanying indications of origin. So far as the purchaser's interest is concerned, those accompaniments may be superfluous; they may make the appearance of the thing less attractive, or even ridiculous. But there is no particular "difficulty" involved, in the sense in which the present wording will be interpreted.
Nor is this the only case of its kind for which the Secretary of State's powers would stop short of what I believe this House may be assuming. There is also, for example, the position in which many imported motor vehicles would stand under the Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that such cars are often handled in this country by companies which have

267
factories here or which include the names of the vehicles in their titles. It follows that "Fiat", "Ford", "Renault" and so on are, even if not the names of persons carrying on trade or business in the United Kingdom, obviously abbreviations of such names. And if your Lordships consider the combined effect of Clause 1(2) and 1(6), you will recognise that wherever such a name as Fiat, Ford, or Renault appears on an imported car, it must—if there is any chance of the customer seeing it before he buys—be accompanied by an indication of non-British origin.
My Lords, I think we would all accept that there is absolutely no benefit for potential purchasers of Fiats and such like in requiring that kind of marking on the hubcaps, the bonnet, the boot and the steering wheel—indeed, they would be more likely to regard it as an unwelcome disfigurement. Yet again one cannot seriously contend that there would be any special "difficulty" in attaching half a dozen or so stick on "Made in Italy" labels at the appropriate points—and so, as the clause stands, the Secretary of State would be powerless to waive a requirement which in those circumstances would be so pointless as to invite derision. If we can escape from the restrictions which the present reference to "difficulties" would impose, appropriate relaxations could in special circumstances be granted, either completely or perhaps—and I return to the motor cars only by way of illustrating, if for example the origin marking of cars were still considered necessary—by substituting a single prominent sticker on the windscreen.
It is with those problems in mind that I put forward this Amendment for your Lordships' consideration. You will observe that it would change Clause 1(5) in three respects. First, it would eliminate the reference to difficulties arising "owing to the special circumstances of any trade" and thus enable the Secretary of State to act in such cases as I have just mentioned, and in which I believe the House will readily agree that it is right and proper that he should be able to act. Secondly, it confines his consideration of the interest of persons in the United Kingdom to whom the goods may be supplied—as I think
268
the House will agree is appropriate, for we cannot presume to take upon ourselves the responsibility for protecting consumers overseas which belongs to their own Governments, and the problem at which this Bill is directed is a particularly domestic one. Thirdly, however, it prescribes that the Secretary of State must not merely "have regard" for the interests of the United Kingdom consumers, but must be satisfied that their interests would not be materially impaired by his direction—a more precise and appropriate indication of the way in which this judgment should be exercised.
These suggested changes do not, of course, mean that the Secretary of State would be bound to act whenever these conditions were satisfied. The power would remain a discretionary one, for exercise only when he was also satisfied that such action was desirable. Nor, on the other hand, would the changes prevent him from acting in cases where compliance gave rise to special difficulties; it would merely mean that in those circumstances his attention was focused not on the difficulties of suppliers as such, but on any adverse consequences which the necessity to overcome those difficulties might have for consumers—for example, by temporarily restricting supplies and thereby inflating prices.
I hope that I have made clear both the motivation and the effect of this Amendment in terms which will persuade your Lordships, as I am persuaded. that it is not merely a desirable but a necessary change. I beg to move.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. During our Committee stage the noble Earl said that he would
"certainly ensure before Report state that if any changes appear necessary in Clause 1(4) to enable us to make appropriate relaxations in respect of books and periodicals and any other such deserving cases, these will be placed before your Lordships."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16/5/72; col. 1336.]
The noble Earl went on to say (column 1337):
"If there is any doubt about it we will take steps to ask the House to give us extra powers and we would expect then to be able to give the exemption for which the noble Baroness is asking in this particular case."
The noble Earl has now tabled this Amendment to put the matter beyond doubt, and I am most appreciative.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 22, after ("may") insert ("be given for a limited time or indefinitely and may").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the second Amendment I propose to Clause 1(5) is simple in its purpose as in its wording. Initially there is an obvious possibility that in some field or other a situation will emerge in which full compliance with the Bill's requirements, though it can be accomplished after an interim period, is not immediately practicable. Again, temporary shortages might occur in the future in which—say, in the case of drugs or foodstuffs—it was necessary at short notice to supplement existing supplies with imports, without there being time to modify the labelling. If relaxations for these special cases were found to be appropriate it would obviously be desirable to subject them to some express time limit within which those concerned would achieve, or revert to, full compliance. And in these circumstances those concerned ought to he able to see from the direction itself that there was a time limit on the relaxation, and for just how long it extended. The Bill already provides that a direction once given may he withdrawn by a later one; the words which the Amendment would add would simply enable a direction to be expressed at the outset as being of a specific limited duration. I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it does not seem to me that these words are necessary. I should have thought that the existing wording, "may be withdrawn or varied by a further direction", covered all eventualities. On the other hand, there may be good reasons, as the noble Earl has explained, why the wording is an improvement, and certainly we on this side have no objection.

BUSINESS
8.26 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before we go on to the next Business, I think we are entitled to some sort of explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to the course of Business for the rest of the evening. The understanding was—and
270
the House gave its agreement to the proposition—that we should adjourn for about one hour in order to take certain other Business and we were then to go on to the Housing Finance Bill. I think it is fair to say that the majority of your Lordships in the House at the present time are here for the purpose of discussing the Housing Finance Bill. I think it would be quite wrong to proceed with other Business after the period of time which we set aside for discussing other matters has elapsed. The Amendment to the National Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill was put down very late, and it changed the sort of understanding that had been reached that we should take it at seven o'clock because it was formal. In the circumstances, that understanding having gone, I should have thought that we should take these other items of Business either on another day or after we finish the discussion on the Housing Finance Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I do not think we want to waste too much time in discussing our programme. I suggest that it would be rather difficult now, having got the next Bill on to the Order Paper, suddenly to change the order of Business. There are various other noble Lords who have come here for the National Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill. I suggest that we should tackle this Bill now—I do not anticipate that it will take very long—and we can then return to the Housing Finance Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has said. One of the undertakings in this House is that if there are understandings they are conformed with. Unless this happens, we can never make any real progress. If the National Health (Family Planning) Amendment Bill can be got through quite rapidly, then I think my noble friend might agree to its being taken now. But I think he would require an assurance from the Ministers responsible for Business that the House will not be placed in this situation again.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I hope that we shall get through the Bill expeditiously. I would only say that, as

271
I understand it, the sponsors of the two Private Members' Bills with which we are dealing had in fact agreed to put back their Business. They were entitled to come first place on the Order Paper to-day. They have tried to meet the convenience of the House by putting them back until seven o'clock. The last Business has taken rather long, but I hope that we can get on quite swiftly now and get through the proceedings on the National Health Service Bill.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I do not know whether it has escaped the notice of the noble Lord that there is a third Bill down for consideration within this hour. A noble Lord has put his name down that the Order of Commitment should be discharged. That is something that should take only a matter of seconds. Could not that be disposed of rather more rapidly than the National Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is formal Business and it will take no time at all.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT BILL
8.27 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Amulree.)
Clause 1 [Provision of voluntary vasectomy services]:
LORD BROCK LORD BROCK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("amended") to end of line 19 and insert (" by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following new subsections:—
'(2A) A local health authority in England or Wales may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, and to such extent as he may direct shall, make arrangements for the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy, the medical examination of persons seeking advice on voluntary vasectomy for the purpose of determining what advice to give and for treatment for voluntary vasectomy.
(2B) A local health authority may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, recover from persons to whom advice is given, or treatment provided, under subsection (2A)
272
above or from such persons of any class or description such charges (if any) as the authority consider reasonable, having regard to the means of those persons'").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain that I was abroad attending an international congress in an official capacity when the House was in Committee on this Bill and thus could not move the amendments that I wished. I felt that I must make an attempt to obtain an Amendment of the form of this Bill in which actual surgery is dealt with so unsatisfactorily. On Second Reading I pointed out how objectionable it is to class an act of surgery, an operation, with various "substances and appliances" such as lubricant jellies, occlusive pessaries and condoms. I commented that this was mean and demeaning, even though not intentionally. I did not oppose the Bill's intent to add voluntary vasectomy to the facilities available under the National Health Service via local health authorities. The Times reported that I said that the vasectomy Bill was mean and demeaning. That I did not say, but, in contrast, I said that it was the way surgery was lumped together with "substances and appliances" that was mean and demeaning.
I therefore wish to propose that surgery should be accorded the dignity that it deserves in this matter. I realise that it is more convenient to amend the Bill by merely adding some words to a sentence already prepared, but that is not good enough. Even if it means making the wording longer and somewhat more elaborate, surgery should be separated from "substances and appliances". It is for this reason that I have suggested the Amendment in my name, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it in the spirit in which it is intended; namely, to confer on an act of surgery the dignity and responsibility that rightly belongs to it and of which it is deprived by the present wording. It in no way interferes with the basic intent of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Brock, said on Second Reading and again to-day. I think I feel equally the honour and dignity of the profession to which we both belong, but if it would make the noble Lord, Lord Brock, feel more comfortable I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, while I do not want to delay the House, I really must say a quick word. I think it is a pity that this Amendment has been moved and I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, will think again about it. I do not think there is any question of indignity or the demeaning of surgery in the drafting of the Bill. It is a small enabling Bill to bring vasectomy into the range of contraceptive services covered by the 1967 Act. My objection to the Amendment is that it puts vasectomy almost in quote marks and removes it from the range of services available to patients. From a merely contraceptive point of view, that seems to me quite wrong. I should have thought that the Bill as originally drafted, with the Amendments put forward on the Committee stage, quite adequately covered the question. I am also against adding to legislation anything which is unnecessary; and I think that this Amendment is completely unnecessary.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I do not wish to take up too much time but I, too, rather regret this Amendment and I do not really understand its purpose. If a physician prescribes a contraceptive pill he does it as a physician. Why something has to be dignified for surgeons but not for physicians I do not really quite follow. The noble Lord, Lord Brock, says—and I agree—that the wording proposed does not make any difference to the practical nature of the Bill except that what is at present done in 12 words will now take 115 in order that surgeons may feel more dignified than physicians. I cannot think myself that it can prove to be necessary.
8.33 p.m.
LORD BROCK LORD BROCK moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
Conscientious objection to participation in treatment
" . No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection:
Provided that in any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I explained earlier, I was abroad on official business when the amended Bill was committed and was thus prevented from moving the Amendments that I indicated I would do in my Second Reading speech. I felt that I could not remain silent although I had missed the Committee stage. Surgeons stand to be deeply affected by this Bill and it is for this reason that I am asking that a conscience clause be inserted as set out. I have been told that this will have but little effect, that it may be unnecessary and that in any case this is only a simple enabling Bill. I am not persuaded that the matter is so simple. The Bill seeks to introduce an entirely new matter; namely, the performance of an operation. This is vastly different from prescribing, or dispensing and supplying, substances and appliances.
On Second Reading it was stated that the provision for vasectomy was only permissive and that my expressed fears about the potential harmful implications for surgeons were ill-founded. I am unconvinced of that, especially when I see and read of the pressures put upon certain surgeons as a result of the Abortion Act, of which I have given examples and which I note have been reinforced by the recent announcement of the Abortion Law Reform Association in its written evidence to the Lane Committee, reported in The Times of May 22. Whatever statements are made now on the harmless nature of this present Bill, it affects surgeons and will affect surgeons who will undoubtedly be expected to carry out the operative procedure as opposed to merely providing substances and appliances. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, actually stated in Committee that the Bill will give a new situation in which vasectomy will become a common operation and large numbers of people will be available for study and research.
I am convinced that it can involve great inconvenience to surgeons and great distractions from their routine and ethical duties. They already have plenty to do. This is my reason for suggesting that a conscience clause is needed. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that an operation is, or ought to be, an entirely individual and personal matter between patient and surgeon. It cannot, or should not, be part of a mass production procedure or policy. This is a simple

275
but fundamental matter which deserves the attention of your Lordships and would surely receive it if your Lordships individually were going to have an operation. You would certainly expect the procedure to be entirely personal between patient and surgeon.
My interpretation of ethics is conventional and correct for to-day, even though some may say it is not what will be thought to-morrow and that the ethics of to-day need to be changed. My interpretation has the approval and support of many surgeons and others who desire that a protective clause should be added to the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. It can do no harm to the intention of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I think we all appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has moved this Amendment to insert a conscience clause: he made it quite clear on Second Reading that he was going to do so. But I would say to him that I think this is entirely unnecessary in the circumstances and I hope that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
The fact is that we must realise this Bill is not, as the Abortion Act partly is, concerned with operations in the Hospital Service, nor with vasectomies provided in the private sector. It is concerned solely with the arranging of vasectomies by local authorities, and it is important to consider how local authorities will use this power. They could for example merely pay for the cost of the vasectomy which is needed by someone who has been accepted for treatment by a voluntary body but who cannot meet the charge. Or the local authorities might agree to send patients selected for treatment under the Bill to a voluntary body having suitable facilities for vasectomy operations. Or they might send patients to a surgeon willing to carry out the operation. They may also perhaps employ surgeons directly in order to provide their own vasectomy sessions. But what is common to all the possibilities open to the local health authority is that not one of them involves any duty on any doctor to carry out a vasectomy
276
against his wishes. Should a doctor have a conscientious objection such as the noble Lord has spoken of, then quite simply he would not be involved and would take no part in these arrangements. They are all voluntary arrangements. I hope very sincerely that the noble Lord will realise this and will not press this Amendment.
8.38 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for what he has said. There is not a great deal more for me to say except to emphasise once more than this Bill has nothing to do with the medical practice of vasectomy. It merely enables a local authority to arrange for vasectomies to be done if the patient is willing and the surgeon is willing to perform the operation. There is no contract as there is in the National Health Service and under the Abortion Act. This is merely a voluntary arrangement. The local authority can go to one surgeon, and if that surgeon is not willing to undertake the operation then they will go to the next one. I very much hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because I do not think it is necessary, considering the purpose of the Bill.
LORD VERNON: I wonder if I could just put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, before he decides whether to press his Amendment. In the Second Reading debate and again this afternoon I think he has drawn a distinction between an operation for medical reasons, which is justified, and an operation for social reasons, which is not. But I wonder whether that distinction is in fact valid or whether in this field the distinction is not rather blurred. Take what is happening in India at the moment. I understand that vasectomies are being performed on a very large scale. It is important to think what would happen if these vasectomies were not performed. It is part of the Indian Government's policy to reduce the birthrate, and if these vasectomies were not carried out the consequences would be likely to be that a large number of Indians might die. Surely, in those circumstances the operation would in effect be carried out for medical reasons. If it is right in

277
India, it must surely be right also to do it in this country. I would ask the noble Lord to consider that point in reaching his decision.
8.40 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I would add one or two words in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said. This operation is performed in India on a vast scale—I think something like 2 million vasectomies are already credited with having been performed in India. What rather grieves me about this question is this. Vasectomy is a perfectly legal operation which can be obtained to-day by anyone who is able to afford its cost. Nursing homes advertise in medical papers their willingness to perform vasectomies without restriction. What grieves me is that those patients who cannot afford to pay for this operation to be done owing to lack of private means would be debarred from having it done if this Bill were not passed. It is a social measure, and no doctor is compelled to operate against his own conscience. This clause is definitely unnecessary, and I am anxious to see it deleted from the consideration of the House this evening. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I would say one word on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, made, because I agree entirely with what the Minister and other noble Lords have said. He made the point that the relationship between the doctor, the surgeon and the patient should be entirely personal. I cannot see how this Amendment alters that in any way at all. Nowhere in the Bill is there any indication that there should he a duty on anybody to do anything. Therefore we are to have a negative put in a Bill which is not balanced at all by a positive in any other part of the Bill. The personal relationship between the patient and the doctor is the same in any event, whether this provision goes in or not. While I think we all appreciate what the noble Lord is concerned about, because he has explained it fully both on Second Reading and now, I hope that his concern will have been put at rest, particularly by what the Minister has said, and that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I am even more disturbed by what I have listened to, and particularly the suggestion that practice in this country should be formed on what is done in India. Performing this operation in railway stations or camps set up for the purpose, and giving transistor radios to encourage patients to come along, is something I hope will not happen in this country. I have heard all the arguments and it would be proper for me not to carry this matter further. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PERFORMERS PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
8.43 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Goodman.)

HOUSING FINANCE BILL
8.44 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [The residual subsidy]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 42, and insert—

("1972–73

Nil

1973–74

The withdrawal factor

1974–75

Twice the withdrawal factor

1975–76

Two and a half times the withdrawal factor

1976–77

Three times the withdrawal factor.")

The noble Lord said: My desire is to calm the situation down so that we can get sweet reason on the other side of the Committee, and perhaps a little more willingness to accept what we hope are valid points. However, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. The purpose of the Amendment is to hold hack the beginning of rent increases until 1973–74. I think many Members of the Committee will

279
feel that one of the most objectionable features of the Bill is the attempt by the Government to push housing authorities into increasing rents in advance of legislation—an attempt of a most objectionable nature. I do not want to use over-strong language, but I find it difficult to regard this attempt as anything other than coercive and undemocratic. Unfortunately, some housing authorities have fallen for it.
First, the demand for 50p increase last April meant a risk, as is now seen as a result of the Birmingham situation, that rents would be raised beyond a so-called fair rent level. Then, if local authorities failed to impose the 50p increase last April they are being compelled under the Bill to impose a £1 a week increase from October. The Government make a great deal of play about rebates and procedures for poorer tenants. They also tell us that they provide for representations regarding proposed rents to be made to a rents scrutiny committee. I do not know how they think all this can operate in October of this year. It seems to me that in this matter the Government are in too much of a hurry to do their unseemly work. To put it in a nutshell, they say, "We have a policy and we are going to implement it regardless." I think they would do well to take a little more time to think out policy and to realise that while progress involves change, as is well known change does not necessarily involve progress. When it comes to proposals being acceptable, they are no more acceptable—indeed, are a great deal less acceptable—when they are seen as change for change's sake. There is a feeling abroad that the Government are determined to make change without taking time to think out thoroughly all the implications of what they are proposing.
At the present time the Government resist wage claims which they insist are inflationary. I am not saying that they resist all claims, but they are resisting many wage claims which they insist are inflationary. Well, good! Let us do what we can in equity to contain the inflationary spiral. As I see it, the proposal is to put £1 a week burden on somebody with, say, a £20-a-week income—I ought not to say "income" but "take-home pay" because it is take-home pay, not gross
280
income, that the housewife has to handle. £1 a week at £20 a week take-home pay represents 5 per cent. of that pay packet. There is more to come. With all the other increases, I think that a very serious situation is going to be created. Before long it will be another 50p, and then in 12 months' time another 50p; and it is inevitable that when the housewife has to meet this kind of increased expenditure—and I want to stress the point that it is the effect it has on take-home pay, as distinct from gross wages—inevitably demands for wage increases are bound to pour in.
I hope that the purpose of the Amendment is clear. It is to delay increases and make them less inflationary when they might become operative. We on this side accept and concur fully in the view expressed by the Association of Municipal Corporations, that if we must have this kind of approach the withdrawal of existing subsidies should be phased over a longer period. The Urban District Councils Association is on record as saying that the withdrawal of existing subsidies and rent increases ought to be phased over a longer period after the Bill is enacted, with the abandonment of any retrospective element in such withdrawal and increases. We ought to get on the record in this Committee the joint view of the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association as expressed in a statement issued as recently as May of this year. They state that the transition to the new system should be phased over a longer period by a slower withdrawal of existing subsidies and a slower or more flexible progression to fair rents. In particular, this would enable authorities to adjust the incidence of rent increases so as to take into account local circumstances and allow a longer period for tenants to adjust their individual budgets. It seems to me that is a little bit of common sense.
They say that a slower rate of withdrawal of existing subsidies would also allow for the avoidance or reduction of any rate burden. I doubt whether I can improve on what those three associations, speaking for the world of local government, have had to say. I urge the Committee to do what it can to persuade the Government to make haste a little more slowly and to have a little more regard to those whom they are making their

281
Agents—because that is what they are doing to local government. They are making them the agents of central Government's will and I think that they would do well to listen to the plea that the local authority associations have made for a little less haste.
8.54 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: I do not want to delay the Committee at this late hour but I want to add a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. This Amendment is fundamental and vital and would make an enormous difference to the successful operation of the Bill. If I am honest I must say that I do not want to see it successfully operated, I want to see it dropped altogether; but if we are going to have to have the Bill let us try and make sure that it is as workable as possible by the local authorities who, after all, are going to have to do the work. The fact that an important Amendment has been introduced late in the day in another place (the Amendment which is referred to as the "Birmingham clause") whereby local authorities who find that more than 2 per cent. of their tenants are going to be above the fair rents level as the result of the bringing into operation of the £1 increases on October 1 can ask for dispensation, as it were, is another powerful reason for allowing this Amendment to go through and for giving effect to some delay in the main provisions of the Bill. What is proposed here is a sensible and reasonable way of doing that. One is simply phasing the amounts that are provided for under Clause 2 until one year later than they would otherwise have occurred.
I do not know whether the noble Lord who is going to reply appreciates that local authorities have tried to consider the provisions of this Bill as best they can. They have tried to wade through the mass of verbiage in these clauses; they have only just begun to understand the full implications. In some cases—for example, we heard earlier of Crawley—the implications are very serious and authorities have started to write to the Department and explain how this is going to affect their tenants and affect the calculations that they have to make and the rebates to which they are entitled. Any delay of this kind is going to be of great assistance to the local authorities. We have heard from the noble Lord who
282
moved this Amendment that it is not just individual authorities who are writing in, it is their associations (who, after all, represent the majority view of their members) who are asking for this kind of amendment to be made to the Bill. After all, in the long run it does not matter very much. The noble Lord who is to reply will reach the same position in 1976–77 as he would have otherwise have done; it merely gives individual local authorities that much more time to move over to the new system, and it gives the tenants that much more time to adjust themselves to the increases in rents which are inevitable sooner or later.
What the noble Lord said on this matter is of vital importance. If the Government are determined, as they say they are, to slow down the rate of inflation to moderate wage demands they have also to control the increases in the cost of living that fall on the average wage and salary earner in this country. I do not think that it is reasonable to expect trade unions and ordinary workers to scale down their demands. I know that some of them do so: the railway men have greatly decreased the demands that they originally made. I do not blame them for doing that; they are trying their best, with scant success, to co-operate with the Government in arriving at a fair wage policy. But how can you expect the N.U.R., ASLEF and the T.S.S.A., or any other trade union, to co-operate in the Government's wages policy when you are continually imposing on their members, and on the wives of their members, increases of the sort which are provided for in this Bill?
If the Government want to get the cooperation of the T.U.C. and of individual trade unions—they are always saying that they want to do this, and I wonder how genuine sometimes these remarks may be, but we can come to that on some other occasion—they will do whatever they can as a Government to mitigate the increases in the cost of living which ordinary workers, wage and salary earners in this country are facing. If at this early stage in the Bill the Minister were to stand up and say that he would agree to this Amendment it could make an enormous difference to industrial relations.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment.

283
On Second Reading I made a short speech and I said that if it were not possible for Her Majesty's Government to give some further subsidy help in the case of houses and flats for general need, I only hope they might be willing to phase off the general subsidy over a longer period than is suggested in the Bill. I also declared an interest as being one of the Vice-Presidents of the Urban District Councils Association.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at this point again. It is very important in a large number of areas that houses should be built, and I fear that if a generous subsidy is not given, anyway until we get over the worst of the difficulty, those houses will not get built. Two or three years ago in many areas of East Anglia I thought we had got over the greatest difficulty, but on making a few inquiries before I spoke on Second Reading I found that in the Newmarket Urban District Council and other councils they have quite big housing waiting lists again. So I would ask the Government seriously to look at this matter again and see whether they can phase the subsidy over a longer period. We accept that in slum clearance areas, areas of special demand, there is little housing for letting and only local authorities can build houses for letting. It does not pay to build houses for letting, without a generous subsidy. It is very unfortunate that ever since the First World War we have not been able to build houses for letting, with the exception of a few through housing societies, and the Church. Commissioners are building a few flats in London for letting. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at this point again.
9.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Some local authorities are in doubt as to whether at this stage they can introduce the Government rent rebate scheme, which is rather more generous, particularly to those not earning a great deal of money, than the schemes that are being operated in a great many authorities at the present moment. I can speak only for Scotland, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for quoting Scotland here, but I understand that my own county of East Lothian has a rent rebate scheme which is very generous as compared with the
284
schemes of most other local authorities in Scotland. I also had the opportunity of comparing the scheme worked by the Scottish Special Housing Association. It is not easy to compare those two rent rebate schemes with the Government scheme, but roughly the lines cross with a person earning about £26 a week, with the Government scheme being more generous to those earning less than £26 per week and rather less generous to those earning more than that. If Her Majesty's Government can assure local authorities that they can bring in the Government rent rebate scheme now, I think it will place those authorities in a rather better position in deciding whether they can increase rents now or have to wait until the Bill becomes an Act. That is one of the points about which I am a little in doubt. I merely ask this as a question and hope that the Government can answer before too long a time has gone by.
9.4 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: If all the fears which noble Lords have been expressing were well-founded there would be something to worry about, but I think a great number of them are based on misconceptions and I will do what I can to set some of those at rest. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, sees the relationship between central and local Government as being one in which we in the central Government are putting the housing and local authorities into the status of acting as our agents. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are the housing authorities; the main responsibilities are theirs. What is being provided by this Bill is a better range of subsidies to assist them in their work.
A second misconception which I want to clear up is that this Amendment on its own—and the noble Lord did not link it with any other Amendment—has anything to do with or in any way affects rents. It cannot do so. Rents in some cases will move upwards in line with the progression of fair rents in accordance with Part V, and downwards as rent rebates come into operation in accordance with Part II, but nothing in this Amendment will affect rents one way or the other. In that connection the noble Lord talked about this being tough. This is not the case at all. One group of people who can afford to pay the fair

285
rent will have their rents progressed to that figure, and that rent itself includes a subsidy bringing it somewhat below the market value of the house. Some 40 per cent. of council tenants will have their rents reduced below that figure by the application of more generous rebates to a larger number of people than enjoy rent rebates at the moment. This Amendment has no effect upon them at all. It does have the effect that it delays the changeover to a new system of subsidy. We have come to the conclusion that the existing system of housing subsidies leaves a great deal to be desired and is unsatisfactory, and that is the view which I understood noble Lords opposite had arrived at as well. When you have formed an opinion as to what should replace it, clearly the right thing to do is to move to that system with as little delay as possible and with all due despatch. We are dealing with what is "a due delay". I do not think there is anything now to delay the progress towards the new subsidy system.
Noble Lords also seem to be under the misconception that if the withdrawal of the existing subsidies were to begin as provided for in the clause we are now discussing, some authorities—Birmingham was quoted—that are not able to make the progression to fair rents as envisaged in Part VI would be put at a disadvantage. This is not so. If noble Lords will look at the next clause, which deals with the transition subsidy, they will see that this subsidy is designed specifically to meet the shortfall between the progression of fair rents, on the one hand, and the withdrawal of existing subsidies, on the other. I hope that, with those explanations dealing with the three misconceptions which have been present in this debate, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this particular Amendment.
BARONESS BIRK: I am a little confused by what the Minister has said about this and by what he calls the misconceptions that have been put forward by those moving and supporting the Amendment. He says that this does not put local authorities into the status of acting as the Government's agents. But surely that is exactly what the Bill as it now stands does. It is trying to force local councils to introduce what are laughingly called "fair rents". He also said that nothing in the Amendment will
286
affect the assessment of fair rents. This may be true. But if the councils themselves had the additional money to use that would accrue to them as a result of the Amendment then it would be possible to revise the whole of the fair rents formula and make it more generous to tenants. Also, as this will occur later in the Bill, I think it is fair to mention that he referred to the question of rent rebates. Quite frankly, if the basis of his argument is going to depend on a fair working out of that then from past experience and the likelihood of the take-up and the number of people who will be forced to apply for rent rebates if they are to live at all, it seems to me to be a very shaky and bad foundation on which to rest the Bill.
9.10 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I thank the Minister for the clarity of his reply but I regret its nature. I regret it to the extent that I think I shall he unable to respond to the invitation that he made not to press this Amendment. Quite clearly, if the Government are going to be as rigid as they have shown themselves to be, not only in regard to the representations made from this side of the Committee but in their resistance to representations from responsible associations, then indeed one feels an obligation to test the Committee on this matter.
May I say that I very much appreciated the support from the noble Lord, Lord Lubbock.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Lord Avebury.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I suppose he was not like some of us: he had no choice; he had to change his name. I can never understand people changing their names. I apologise to him. I was grateful for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave to this Amendment; he made a number of points that I should have liked to make myself. But may I say to the Government spokesmen that I think they would do well to pay more heed than they have shown sign of doing to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton. He has repeated what he said at Second Reading, and it is quite clear that when it comes to influencing the Government he has wasted his breath. We shall give him an opportunity to use it in another direction,

287
and I hope that he will not hesitate to go into the Lobby with us, because quite clearly the association for which he spoke this evening and in which he plays such a distinguished role has a right to have its views taken seriously and pressed with vigour.
I hope that the Government spokesmen will also pay attention to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. He said that some local authorities are in doubt as to whether they can operate the Government's rebate scheme entirely. What are the voices that have been heard in this debate, apart from those on the Front Bench opposite? They have been the voices of those speaking for local government and with experience of local government. How determined are the Government not to see the light? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, rejects the suggestion that local authorities have been turned into agents. He says, "We are devising the subsidy scheme so that they will be more free than they ever have been". Is that the only thing that is going to happen as a result of this Bill? Is that the only effect local authorities are going to feel as a result of this Bill?
Nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that most of the argument is about rents, and local authorities are being given no option. They are being told. "Do what we tell you, and if you don't we shall appoint commissioners to take the job over for you; and, what is more, you are going to have to pay money for doing jobs that you have not had to do before and you will do it because we tell you you have got to". If that is not being put into the position of an agent, then I do not know what an agency is. I should prefer they were made free agents, but the freedom they have enjoyed in many spheres is in fact being taken from them.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has no reason to ask to he forgiven for speaking for Scotland in this debate. I have
often wanted to join in debates on Scotland as I have listened for hours to them in this House. I shall now feel that he has provided me with all the excuse that I might have been seeking for a very long time without finding it. It was delightful to hear him and I hope that we shall have many similar interventions. It may indeed cut short consideration of the Bill that deals with Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that if all the fears expressed were well founded there would be room for concern. Who is the better judge as to whether there is room for concern—those who hold office in Whitehall, or those responsible for government in the localities? It really will not do for the Government to say throughout the piece, "We know best". Of course they can say that, and with their numbers they can win the day; but that only hastens and makes more certain what will happen at the next General Election. That is the pity of it, that somebody is going to have to unravel all the mischief that is being done here.
I apologise if I have failed to make any reference to Amendments that have yet to be moved. That was perhaps because of an over-anxiety on my part not to anticipate the arguments that will be advanced, and not too far in advance to state the full consequences of this clause that I seek to amend. The noble Lord raised the question of what the Amendment does. May I say that the Amendment is intended to delay the changeover to a new system of subsidy which local government asks to be delayed. And indeed it would have this effect. I do not think that we have missed the point. If I might put it this way, we are right on the ball.
9.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Foot, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hale, L.

Shepherd, L.

Birk, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Swaythling, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Energlyn, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lothian, M.

Abinger, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lyell, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Molson, L.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Bradford, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Oakshott, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

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

Rankeillour, L.

Courtown, E.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hertford, M.

Savile, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Teviot, L.

Digby, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vernon, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Young, Bs.

Elles, Bs.

Limerick, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.25 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("£20") and insert ("£10")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to subsection (3), and is closely related to the Amendment which we have been discussing. Subsection (3) defines the "withdrawal factor", and we find that it means the sum produced by multiplying £20 by the number of the Housing Revenue Account dwellings at a particular date. What we are suggesting—and we are not alone in suggesting this—is that instead of that figure of £20 there should be a figure of £10. This is a method of slowing down the changeover, and of course, if the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment, it would be accompanied by an appropriate variation in the table which we have just discussed.
The first point I must make is that we are now at the Committee stage, which is an early stage in your Lordships' consideration of the Bill, because not only do we follow this with a Report stage but we have a further stage beyond that when, if necessary, polishing up and further discussion can take place. So it must he recognised that a Committee stage is quite an early stage in the consideration of the Bill, and therefore it is now proper to look into, investigate and probe in a very general way, and not necessarily expect to finish the Committee stage with the Bill in its final form.
A further point that I want to make is that of course when an Opposition is putting down Amendments at a Committee stage it should, if it has the time and if it is to do a thoroughly tidy job, put down all the consequential Amendments which might arise to all the other clauses and schedules to the Bill if those Amendments were carried. If that were done your Lordships would have in front of you a Marshalled List which was five or ten times as long as the List which is now in front of you, and it would put everybody, including your Lordships, to totally unnecessary trouble. Because, unfortunately, one of the facts of life—even, I gather, in the happy days of a Labour Administration—is that not every Amendment suggested by an Opposition in your Lordships' House is accepted. Therefore we are at a stage when we have to take a practical view and not necessarily link every possible Amendment to the Amendment which is being moved. So, with that explanation, I hope that it will not be put against the argument which I shall adduce in favour of this Amendment that I have not put down the consequential Amendments and that there is therefore some defect in this Amendment.
The reason I say that is that, with the structure of the Bill, this residual subsidy is related to the rent increases. The rent increases come at a much later stage of the Bill and they have not yet been appropriately altered in consonance with the acceptance by the Government of the Amendment which we are now discussing—which I hope will be the case though it may not. But, having,

291
regard to some of the comments made on the last Amendment, I thought it was right to make this point absolutely clear; and, further, to make it clear that the assumption behind this Amendment is that, if it is accepted, not only will there be an appropriate amendment to column 2 of the table in the previous subsection but that we are discussing it in relation to a contemplated increase of £26 per annum in rents—this is what the £20 lines up with. The hope would be that if this were acceptable to the Government, £10 instead of £20, the amount of the increase in rents would similarly be delayed or reduced. So what is being suggested in this Amendment is that, keeping, if you like, the balanced and related structure of the Bill, the whole changeover should be slowed down.
Why should it be slowed down? It is because some of the largest authorities which the Government are seeking to help would find themselves in an impossibly difficult position if the changeover took place at the speed and in the time which the Government contemplate. As I understand it, the average subsidy per dwelling is of the order of £60 (it may be a little less than that; between £50 and £60), so that a withdrawal of £20 in year one followed by a withdrawal of £20 in year two (we have now got to £40) would mean that in year three virtually the whole of die subsidy would be withdrawn. In the case of authorities like Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester—enormous housing authorities, second only to London—with their vast stock of existing local authority housing, the withdrawal factor, as the clause makes clear, is multiplied by the number of the local authority's Housing Revenue Account dwellings—old dwellings, very old dwellings, extremely old dwellings. All of them are included in the multiplication factor. They are dwellings which are possibly no longer attracting any subsidy at all, or only a very small subsidy: it is the more modern dwellings which are attracting the higher subsidy under our current arrangements. Where you have a situation like that, a housing authority of the kind I have mentioned—and we are dealing with enormous numbers in relation to the total number of local authority tenants throughout the country when we include Liver
292
pool, Birmingham and Manchester—will lose the bulk of its existing subsidies within the first two years of the scheme operating. Such authorities find this impossible to deal with, and the A.M.C., as those on both sides of the Committee who have been informed will know, have pressed the Government very hard indeed to slow down this rate of changeover—and that is what this important Amendment is about.
I do not think there is any difficulty in the wording of the Amendment itself. It is indeed extremely simple, and merely substitutes £10 for £20; and I have explained that the associated Amendments, if not tabled now, could easily be dealt with at a later stage. So that is the first and most important point about this matter. We arc not only speaking from our own point of view, but are representing the unanimous view, as I understand it, of the municipal corporations. They all share this view—and the largest ones are the worst affected. In addition to that, of course, there is the problem of inflation—more particularly, an increase in the spiral of wage inflation rather than general inflation—which will be brought about by this proposal.
The related rent increase, as I have already said, if this Amendment were accepted would be capable of being reduced in pace. The proposed rent increase, as my noble friend has already indicated, is a very substantial element, whether it is in terms of points in the cost of living Index or in terms of the impact on the take-home pay of the average tenant. It is an even greater percentage if it is looked at in terms of the rent alone. I am afraid that that is the argument that would be uppermost in the minds of the tenants. The Bill is not yet law; and the requirement under the Bill is that there shall be an increase of £26 a year; and if the Bill is effective for half a year the rent increase will be £1 a week in order to achieve the requirements of the Government. The rent increase of £1 a week, as it is going to be in the vast majority of cases, on an average rent of £2 a week throughout the country will represent a simple 50 per cent. increase in the rent payable by the tenant who is going to be affected this year by this proposal.
I do not have to persuade your Lordships that this is too quick; I do not

293
have to persuade you that the effect of that on the average wage earner concerned with wage negotiations is too drastic. One cannot digest an increase of that amount in such a fundamental matter as one's rent. One cannot digest that without having its spill-over effect into wage negotiations. So whether one puts it from the point of view of the largest, the most numerous housing authorities, or from a point of view of those most concerned, from that of the corporations themselves or from that of the desire of the Government and of the Opposition and of every responsible person in this country to do whatever is possible to slow down the rate of inflation, this is something that is too quick and is totally unnecessary.
What is the great and enormous hurry? What does it matter if the Government's purpose is achieved a little more slowly and without the economically disastrous concomitant circumstances which would arise from this over-hasty action? We are not proposing any alteration to the main principle of the Bill. We dislike the Bill enormously; but we are here concerned with an improvement to the Bill to make it possible for the Government's purpose to be achieved more slowly, but effectively, and without the inflationary effects that would otherwise ensue. I think we are making a reasonable request and I hope the Government will accept it.
9.40 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: This Amendment has the effect of slowing down the rate of progression to the new system of subsidy. The previous Amendment delayed its start. Most of my remarks will be in a similar vein to those I made on the previous Amendment; but as I clearly have not succeeded in resolving a number of the misconceptions or misunderstandings I will make those remarks rather more deliberately and at slightly greater length. We shall hear all the arguments about the rate of progression to fair rents in their proper place when we come to Part VI in the Committee stage, and it will be useful then to have had this preview of what noble Lords opposite think about that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, there is a relationship between a rate of progression to fair rents and the rate of withdrawal of the old subsidies, but
294
it is not of the direct kind which I think he still fears may be the case. If we were to agree that a rate of progression to fair rents should be increased or reduced when we come to that particular part of the Bill, all that could be done without any change, or without a corresponding change, in the rate of withdrawal of the existing subsidy which we are now discussing on Clause 2. The reason why these are not directly related, though they are linked, is because of the transition subsidies which make good the short-fall, if there is a short-fall, between the increase of rents on the one hand under Part VI and the reduction or withdrawal of the residual subsidies under Clause 2; transition subsidies featuring in Clause 3 which we are coming to.
LORD DIAMOND: Would the noble Lord say whether the transition subsidy provides for 100 per cent.?
LORD SANDFORD: If the noble Lord will look at the bottom of page 4, he will see the way in which the contribution from the rate fund and the Exchequer is apportioned year by year. So there is this direct link between progression to fair rents on the one hand and the withdrawal of the existing subsidies on the other. There is this transition subsidy, of which the Exchequer bears 90 per cent. in the first instance and then reducing by 5 per cent. per annum in all the years in which it is paid, which cushions the effect of the two.
Having once decided that there is a better system of subsidy available, which has been designed to have, and has, the effect of concentrating help where it is needed, on the people who need it and in the places where it is needed, rather than spreading it indiscriminately on those who need it and on those who do not, I submit to the Committee that the sensible thing is to embark on the progress from the old and now outworn system to the new and very much fairer and better system without undue delay and with all reasonable despatch. That is what Clause 2 provides for.
I do not know whether that has helped noble Lords opposite to see why at this point it does not seem to me to be profitable to go into the discussion about fair rents, whether they are a good idea and whether progression is at the right rate or not. This is something which we can

295
discuss extensively on Part VI, but it does not arise at this point because it is quite possible to vary the one without varying the other. The rate of progress to the new system of subsidy and the withdrawal of the old subsidies enables us to start to concentrate help where it is needed. It is one of the things which enables us to give much more generous rent rebates than have been available in the past to snore people than have hitherto enjoyed them. I should have thought that is something which all noble Lords opposite approve of and applaud; they have certainly done so so far.
It also enables us to concentrate the rising cost of subsidy, to which we shall be coming a little later, on those authorities which still have major problems of housing to contend with, instead of continuing a subsidy system which may have been appropriate immediately after the war—when the main problem was to build more houses everywhere for everyone—but is no longer appropriate now. It seems to me that if we have a system which has these two main merits of enabling us to help people and places needing help, instead of spreading the help indiscriminately, the sooner we start moving to that system, and the faster we go within reason, the better it is for all concerned. It is for those reasons that we have proposed the rate of progress set out in Clause 2. For the reasons that I gave at the beginning, the fact that rents progress to fair rents at the particular rate does not come into the argument at this point.
9.45 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked whether we thought that his remarks had been helpful. They have been most helpful. They have proved up to the hilt his point that there is grave misconception about the meaning of the Amendment and the meaning of the Bill. The only slight difference between the noble Lord and myself is as to where the misconception lies. Unfortunately, my present view is that the noble Lord has not the remotest idea of what the Bill is about. He is talking about persuading us. The first thing I must remind the noble Lord is that the latest representation I have had from the Association of Municipal Corpora
296
tions is dated yesterday, or the day before, and they have been in touch with the Government throughout. It really is not practical to hope to persuade us that the Association and all their members are so "thick" that they cannot understand the effect of this Bill on their own authorities.
With the greatest possible respect, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I am going to assume that the Association, and its constituent members and their very experienced treasurers, qualified municipal accountants and so on, are able to understand the financial implications of this Bill and are totally unpersuaded and totally opposed to the Government's present view. That is point number one. It is not us he has to persuade, but a vast body of non-political, impartial, well-informed individuals concerned with the housing welfare of their citizens.
The second point I want to deal with is the irrelevant set of reasons which the noble Lord gave for wanting to get on with the Bill. He talked about concentrating help where it is needed and about all the other kinds of assistance which are available under this Bill. As to those kinds of assistance, if we were to agree that they were assistance, there is no reason why they should not go on at whatever rate the Government want them to go on. With great respect, they are totally unrelated to this Amendment and to the simple proposition about whether rents go up at a given pace and accordingly whether the withdrawal factor is £10 or £20. It is totally unrelated to that; the rest of it could be carried out just the same. Moreover, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but his view that this Bill will help individual authorities and persons does not coincide with our view; it does not coincide with the sufferers' view; it does not coincide with the view of those local authorities who are finding that they are being particularly harshly treated under the Bill and who so far have had no success whatever in persuading the Government to introduce Amendments into the Bill which will enable hardship in particular cases to he removed and the Government's allegation that they wish to direct help to those most requiring it to become a fact. That is a further point which I hope the Government will take on board.

297
The final point is the suggestion that this matter is unrelated to the increase in rents and that this problem can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily by itself because there is a transition subsidy. I am sorry to repeat the phrase "with the greatest possible respect" to the noble Lord, because on this point I do not think a great deal of respect is due. The noble Lord has said that it makes no difference: you get a subsidy through another channel. That means that you get the same sum through another channel. But you do not. It is as simple as that. You get a proportion of that sum through another channel. It is nonsense to say that you are just as well off under the transition subsidy as if this amount were reduced to £10 instead of £20.
I intervened to ask the noble Lord a question and he kindly directed my attention to the point to which I was directing his attention; namely, the fact that you do not get your money. You get 90 per cent. of it, 85 per cent. of it, 80 per cent. or 75 per cent. of it or—and I am reading from the table:
"… such other percentage as may be substituted for 75 per cent. for the year in question by an order under subsection (5) below."
So you get any figure being not less than, I think, to be fair, 60 per cent. which I the Minister decides on. Well, I may be
a better businessman than the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—indeed I hope I am—but I can tell the difference between 60 per cent. and 100 per cent. of anybody's money at any time, and I daresay that the municipal treasurers of the local authorities can do the same.
So we find ourselves in a situation where the Government are not offering the same amount, or an alternative, and are sticking to a proposal which will have the most disastrous inflationary effect, about which the noble Lord said nothing—for the very sensible reason that there is nothing he can say. There is no argument anybody can put up against the suggestion that an increase of 50 per cent. in a council house tenant's weekly rent, which is put on the mantelpiece every week for everybody to see and know about inside that house, is bound to he inflationary and something which the wage-earner, his wife and family are going to take note of in their next wage negotiations. Nobody can deny that, and in the circumstances therefore the reply has been inaccurate or irrelevant or absent; and we shall divide the Committee.
9.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Bacon, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Shepherd, L.

Birk, Bs.

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

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Swaythling, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Energlyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Hives, L.

Abinger, L.

Elles, Bs.

Hylton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Kemsley, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Limerick, E.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Lothian, M.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Margadale, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Mersey, V.

Courtown, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Milverton, L.

Cowley, E.

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

Molson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Hanworth, V.

de Clifford, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Oakshott, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Digby, L.

Hertford, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Drumalbyn, I.

Reay, L.

Savile, L.

Vernon, L.

Redesdale, L.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

Sandford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Young, Bs. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Teviot, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House resumed.

BATH SIDE BAY DEVELOPMENT BILL
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL AND TRUST PROPERTY DEPTFORD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  FOOD ADDITIVES AND HEALTH
  FOOD ADDITIVES AND HEALTH