Sitting of 7 June 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
DEATH OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF WINDSOR
THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful address of sympathy on the occasion of the death of His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor.
I am glad to think that My Uncle's service to his country and to the British Empire is remembered with gratitude at this time.
I am conveying the House's expression of sympathy to the Duchess of Windsor.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND LIMITED WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    Television Licence Fee
    Mr. Moateasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what further representations he has now received on the question of concessionary arrangements for radio and television licence fees for retired persons; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will extend the present special television licence facilities, now applicable to retired people of pensionable age living in old persons' homes, to all retired people of pensionable age living in accommodation certified by local authorities or other organisations as being provided solely for such persons.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what recent representations he has received regarding concessionary provisions for radio and television licence fees for retired people; and what replies he has sent.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a statement on the outcome of his consideration of the need to rectify anomalies and inequity in charges for television and radio licences for the elderly.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): As I told the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 10th May I am looking carefully at the arrangements for the special licence for old persons' homes. However, I would not wish to hold out much hope that there will be a simple solution and it will be some time before the full study is completed.—[Vol. 836, c. 1287.]
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that television is often the main source of comfort and company for many old people who find it increasingly difficult to meet the cost of the television licence fee? Will he do his utmost to persuade his colleagues in the Government that the time has come to stop stressing the obvious difficulties and that they should find a way whereby a concession can be given to those who are genuinely in need?
    Sir J. Eden: I agree that for many old people television is a most important form of entertainment and companionship. The fact remains, however, that these are extremely complex matters, and the study which I have in hand will take some time to complete.
    Mr. Dempsey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most

    425
    dreadful companion that old folk can possibly have is loneliness? Will he therefore consider doing his utmost to make it possible for old people to enjoy such a television concession? Will he discuss the matter with the Ministers responsible for the social work department who may be able to assist financially?
    Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir, but I think that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the whole House will recognise that there are many old people who can well afford the licence fee for television. I am sure that all Governments have been right in placing the emphasis in this whole matter on providing cash benefits through the normal retirement benefit measures.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As there is near unanimity that something ought to be done about this matter, and while recognising that the problem is complex, may I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise that the initiative ought to be with Her Majesty's Government, because the loss of revenue to the BBC, perhaps £25 million a year, could be made good by a parliamentary Vote specifically for this purpose if the House so desired?
    Sir J. Eden: That may well be so as my hon. Friend says, but the fact remains that all Governments so far—and the present Government are no exception in this—have believed that the right way to deal with the problems of elderly people is through cash benefits. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been increasing these substantially during our period of office.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in simple terms what is complex about this?
    Sir J. Eden: The complexity is that it involves the whole system of the financing of the BBC. Second, if one gives a benefit in kind in one direction, there may be just as strong claims for benefits in kind in other directions.
    Mr. Marten: On the more general question of television licences, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his refusal to grant a rebate on a television licence where the holder of the licence has died? Is he aware that once one has died—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that can arise out of this Question.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Having regard to the complexity, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Postal Finances
    Mr. Ewingasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement regaring his discussions with the Post Office Board concerning future plans for the postal services.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether his discussion with the Post Office about the financial position of the postal services is complete; and if he will make a statement to the House of Commons before issuing details to the public, and include in it details of losses written off.
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the estimated shortfall in the financial targets of the Post Office Corporation for postal services for the period ended 31st March, 1972.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what recent discussions he has had with the Post Office Corporation over the future of postal services.
    Sir J. Eden: The Chairman of the Post Office has indicated that the shortfall is likely to be about £180 million over the five years ending March, 1973. My discussions have not yet been concluded.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the postal services are a very important part of the country's economy and that the fear at present is that, if the economy expands at the expected rate, because of the delay in the reconsideration which is taking place the Post Office will not be equipped to handle the expansion in the economy?
    Sir J. Eden: I agree of course that the Post Office and the postal services are a very important part of the economy. I was referring in my answer to the actual figures for the shortfall which is likely or expected to be incurred over five years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the full accounts are not yet available. That is why I am having to temporise until I see the actual figures.
    Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement that the shortfall in the financial targets of the Post Office Corporation on postal services is £180 million is alarming? Taking into account that the current deficit of the Corporation on the postal side is running at about £142 million, do these figures herald a further increase in postal tariffs or is it the Government's intention to write off this alarming and indeed staggering deficit?
    Sir J. Eden: The matters mentioned in the last part of that question are still under discussion and the whole question of the development of the postal services is also under active consideration. The price restraint policy and the postal strike have both made a substantial mark on the finances of the corporation.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my right hon. Friend give us a little more detail about the impact of price restraint on the Post Office? To what extent has that contributed to the horrific figures of projected losses which he has announced, and to what extent will further provision be made to allow for the effects of this price restraint scheme on the Post Office in future?
    Sir J. Eden: The full implications for all nationalised industries of the policy of price restraint are under consideration by the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced. That consideration is still taking place.
    Mr. Price: Is it not a racing certainty that if the postal services are to be maintained at present levels, if postmen are to be paid adequate wages and if any sort of return is to be gained on capital, we will have a 5p first-class post within the next two years?
    Sir J. Eden: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. No doubt the Post Office is taking very seriously into account the fact that there is a decline in the demand for the postal service.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I think the Minister will be aware that the figures he has announced will give us all cause for concern and thought. We should like to hear from him at an early stage what steps the Government propose to take about this and we should like to hear
    428
    that we will have an early opportunity of discusing these matters in the House.
    Sir J. Eden: As soon as my discussions have been concluded an announcement will be made.

    Hotel Accommodation (Registration)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now, in view of the proposal made to him by the English Tourist Board, issue a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to enable hotel registration to take place through the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir J. Eden: As he indicated in replying to a Question on 5th June, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is at present considering proposals from the English Tourist Board for the registration of hotel accommodation. If the proposals are approved, the possible use of Post Office facilities would be a matter for settlement between the board and the Post Office.—[Vol. 838, c. 8.]
    Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he do his best speedily to implement the proposals, particularly of course in view of his own constituency interest in the development of tourism?
    Sir J. Eden: We must first await the consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the proposals themselves.

    Two-Tier Postal Service
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on improvements in the efficiency of the two-tier postal service.
    Sir J. Eden: I have made clear to the Post Office that it has my full support in any action that may be necessary to improve the reliability of the letter mails.
    Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is the present two-tier postal service more or less efficient than the system that it replaced? Has it proved worth while?
    Sir J. Eden: The Post Office has always operated a two-tier system. What

    429
    is proving worth while in this respect is that there is a degree of consumer choice and that letters marked out for first-class delivery are more likely by this means to be delivered in the next day's first post than by any other means.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Minister aware, however, that there have now been three national polls, paid for by the taxpayer, into the efficiency of the two-tier system and that the results of those polls produced figures varying from 83 per cent. to 92 per cent. efficiency in the delivery of first-class correspondence? Which of those polls does the Minister accept?
    Sir J. Eden: To be honest, I am not terribly concerned about the polls. I am concerned only with improving results.

    Giro
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is yet able to state what Post Office Giro losses were for the chargeable accounting period ended 31st March, 1972; and what further steps he has now taken towards profitability in the year 1972–73.
    Sir J. Eden: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 19th April, but I refer him to the measures announced by my predecessor on 22nd March—[Vol. 835, c. 484; Vol. 833, c. 1478.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, but they were all very unsatisfactory anyway. Is not the Minister aware that the Government's policy has been to try to coax along such lame ducks as there are in the industrial economy? Do we not have in the Post Office today a whole nestful of dying ducks, of which the Giro is the worst, and should it not be exterminated at the earliest possible date?
    Sir J. Eden: The Giro may have got off to a faltering start but, having taken the decision to continue its existence, I am sure it is right that we should give it every encouragement to succeed.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is true that this enterprise got off to a very bad start but that it was not helped by some of the observations of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Has there not been a discernible and en-
    430
    couraging improvement in the last few months, however, and will the Minister do all he can to get industrialists, commercial undertakings and other people to enter this enterprise so that it will be an assured success?
    Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation will have that last point very much in mind.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: What we on this side are anxious to do—and I am sure that this applies to many hon. Members on the Government side too—is to improve the number of customers that the Giro has and not to damn it, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) does every three weeks? How do the Government propose to help the Giro services to expand its business?
    Sir J. Eden: This is a matter for the Chairman of the corporation, but proposals for charge increases are now with the Post Office Users National Council and the corporation has accepted the new financial objective of making a positive contribution from Giro to Post Office finances within a year of introducing the new tariffs.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consideration by the Post Office Users Consultative Council of proposals to increase Giro charges in line with the recommendations of the Cooper Brothers report.
    Sir J. Eden: I have nothing as yet to add to the reply given by my predecessor on 22nd March to my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 833, c. 1478.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend suggest to Lord Peddie and his fellow sages that it is about time they started taking their finger out? Will he recall that the increase in charges was due to occur at the end of this month? Many of us, certainly some of us, would regard any further dilution or postponement of the increase in these charges, as recommended by the Cooper Brothers report, as being very undesirable.
    Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend has previously expressed the view that he has just repeated in the later part of his supplementary question. On the first part, I hope to receive the report of the

    431
    Post Office Users National Council in about a week to 10 days' time.

    Postal and Telephone Charges
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to what extent the proposed increases in charges for post and telephone services conform to the Confederation of British Industry initiative in seeking to limit price increases to 5 per cent. in any one year.
    Sir J. Eden: The recent increases in postal and telephone charges are within the CBI limit. There are no further proposals.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is simply not true. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Post Office Users National Council pointed out in its last report that there was gross discrimination against residential users compared with some business users: that, for example, some business users' tariffs were to be increased by 1½ per cent. while the tariffs of new residential users were to be increased by 40 per cent. and that more than 50 per cent. of all residential consumers would be paying more than 7 per cent. more? Does he accept that this gross discrimination against the residential user of the telephone compared with the business user is indefensible?
    Sir J. Eden: The increases will raise users' costs on average by 3 per cent. I accept of course that there will be variations within that average figure.
    Dr. Gilbert: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the best contributions to getting the costs of the telephone service down is to encourage the greater use of the facilities that are already installed?
    Sir J. Eden indicated assent.
    Dr. Gilbert: I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me. Will he therefore tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the imposition of VAT to the tune of £40 million a year on telephone subscribers will impede his efforts in this connection?
    Sir J. Eden: The last point made by the hon. Gentleman is of course not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree
    432
    with the hon. Gentleman in his first point and he will have noted the interesting speech made by Mr. Rosser, President of the Post Office Engineering Union, in which he forecast no falling off in demand for the telephone services of the Post Office.

    Employees (References)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office to supply those employees who have given good service with written references when their employment terminates.
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. I am told that the Post Office is willing to give written references.
    Mr. Janner: May we have a firm assurance that no departments in the Post Office follow the rule that written references should not be given? If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give such an assurance, will he undertake to conduct an inquiry into this matter? If it turns out that there are departments in which this rule applies, bearing in mind the great difficulty which people face in these difficult times in getting another job without a reference, will he see that such a disgraceful and scandalous situation is overruled?
    Sir J. Eden: This is a matter of relationship between the employee and his employer—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but I am informed by the Post Office that its local managers provide a reference when an employee or his prospective employer asks for one.

    Telephone Installation
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many new telephone subscribers there have been in the last 12 months; and how many are currently awaiting installation.
    Sir J. Eden: The Post Office tells me that about 1·3 million new exchange lines were supplied in the year ending 31st March, 1972. About 222,000 applicants were waiting for telephones at the end of April.
    Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures cloak the fact that no credit can be reflected on

    433
    anybody concerned in this operation? Does he appreciate than an overhaul o the telephone services is long overdue? Does he realise that while all the national figures are disturbing, the figures applying to development districts are particularly disturbing in view of the adverse effects they have on those areas, in which there are far too many firms and individuals awaiting the installation of telephones?
    Sir J. Eden: I am aware of the point the hon. Gentleman makes about the development areas but, as he knows, a tremendous amount of attention is being given to ways in which to cut into the over-long waiting list; and every party concerned shares the determination to bring the list down as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in my constituency we have an exceptionally long waiting list and that this is especially disturbing when one realises the number of cases of high social priority? May I draw his attention to the widespread concern that is felt in Northampton shire and the hope that the Post Office will do something urgently to reduce the waiting time for telephones?
    Sir J. Eden: I assure my hon. Friend that the last point he makes is well appreciated. I can be absolutely categoric, as a result of the discussions that I have had not only with the industry's suppliers but also with the Post Office, that there is a clear and unanimous determination to tackle this problem with the utmost vigour.

    Telephone Accounts (Errors)
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what numbers and what proportion of accounts sent out to customers in the last year for telephone charges are known to have contained errors; and how many of these were discovered through complaints received, and how many were spotted by the corporation itself.
    Sir J. Eden: As has already been said in answer to similar Questions, statistics of this kind are for the Post Office to supply and I am sure that the chairman will be glad to help my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being able to make
    434
    that reply but I am disappointed that he cannot give the figures. Is he satisfied that the system of internal checking of accounts by the Post Office is adequate for its purpose? Does he accept that the duty to ensure the accuracy of accounts should lie with the corporation rather than with the customer?
    Sir J. Eden: If the customer is dissatisfied he can always refer any complaint to the Post Office Users National Council. The Post Office itself is always very willing in any particular case of dispute to make a thorough investigation.

    Subscriber Dialling
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the latest percentage of dialled calls connected accurately on the first dialling attempt.
    Sir J. Eden: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my predecessor gave to him on 1st March.—[Vol. 832. c. 105.]
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing number of local, national STD and international ISD calls for which, because of the inaccuracies of the dialling mechanism, it is becoming quicker to go via the operator? Is it a fact that this will not improve until 1980 or is this some new subtle way of making the postal services more profitable?
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The last part of that supplementary question is not justified. As the hon. Gentleman knows from the previous answer, the percentage for 1970–71 was 8·7 for STD while for dialled local calls the percentage was 3·4. I cannot give more recent figures because we must await the board's latest annual report.
    Mr. Gorst: Has my right hon. Friend examined ways in which, apart from the Post Office, other organisations might be brought in to produce resources which might help not only to improve the efficiency of the telephone service at the peripheral subscriber apparatus end but also to produce new ideas so that the Post Office may concentrate on trunk and exchange equipment, which is really at the root of this problem?
    Sir J. Eden: Quite substantial advances have already been made in the range of

    435
    choice available to users of peripheral equipment, but I am not satisfied that that is by any means the end of the possibilities. The major part of the improvement which all hon. Members want to take place rests of course with improving the exchange equipment itself, and there are major investment decisions to be taken in that regard.

    Broadcasting (Public Announcements)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what communications he has received relating to his powers under the Television Act, 1964, and the British Broadcasting Corporation Licence and Agreement concerning the transmission of special public announcements; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir J. Eden: None relating to my powers; but both the BBC and the ITA have kept me informed of their views on broadcasting announcements about the ballot organised by the Commission for Industrial Relations.
    Mr. Whitehead: In that case may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that an attempt was made by a third party organisation to have transmitted supposed public service announcements which would have been both tendentious and highly political? Will he confirm that it is the firm policy of Her Majesty's Government not to encourage requests of that kind?
    Sir J. Eden: As the commission is an independent body the Government are not directly involved in this matter, and it was therefore proper for the ITA and the BBC together to resolve any problem that might have arisen.

    BBC (Chairman of Governors)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the name of the new chairman of the governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Sir J. Eden: I have nothing to add to my predecessor's reply on 9th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).—[Vol. 830, c. 1319.]
    Mr. Price: May we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman will ignore the
    436
    demands of the neurotics on the benches behind him to appoint a right-wing political hack to straighten out the BBC? Will he make it absolutely clear that what the BBC wants more than anything else is the least possible interference from either side of this House?
    Sir J. Eden: I have the very greatest respect for any view put forward by my hon. Friends, in whatever condition they may be.
    Sir G. Nabarro: A splendid answer, John.

    Outside Broadcasts (Advertising)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will seek powers to enable him to restrict the amount of display advertising which is permitted in outside broadcasts.
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. This is a matter for the BBC and the ITA which tell me that they are co-operating to try and ensure that sporting events do not carry an undue element of incidental advertising.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister satisfied with that reply? Is it not a disgrace that in sponsoring sports organisations firms such as Watneys, Texaco, Ladbrooke, Gillette and Benson and Hedges, and many more like them, are obtaining hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of free advertising at a time when the licence fee for pensioners in particular is being continually increased? Will the Minister allow the BBC to charge for this advertising and at least let viewers get some benefit from it?
    Sir J. Eden: I thought my reply was rather good. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, there is nothing to prevent the BBC or the other television authorities, the programme companies or whoever it is, coming to terms with the promoters of the event which they are proposing to televise.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does not the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) have a point in putting the Question? Is it not possible for all the advertising available around a football ground to be taken over, for example, by a tobacco company, thereby gaining for about 90 minutes free advertising of a product for which advertising is otherwise prohibited?
    Sir J. Eden: I think that is going a bit far and that we should try—[Interruption.] Section 7(7)(c) of the Television Act, 1964, specificaly allows the broadcasting of
    "items consisting of factual portrayals of doings, happenings…proper for inclusion by reason of their intrinisic interest…and do not comprise an undue element of advertisement."
    I know that the authorities are perfectly capable of making up their minds.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: In his answer the right hon. Gentleman spoke of "incidental" advertising. Is he aware that it is no longer incidental but is a well organised scheme of advertising used, as my hon. Friend said, by tobacco companies, drink manufacturers and so on, and that all these people are getting cheap advertising by the BBC and others?
    Sir J. Eden: I have no doubt that, in so far as advertising helps to bring about these sporting events—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It certainly does. This is a separate matter from the decision of the broadcasting authority about whether to televise. It is for the authority to judge whether the degree of advertising is undue.

    Television Licence Evasion
    Mr. Idris Owenasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is now able to make a statement on the result of the 1971–72 television licence anti-evasion campaign.
    Sir J. Eden: During the campaign some 350,000 licences were taken out which produced an estimated maximum additional annual revenue of £2½ million.
    Mr. Owen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I find the improvement encouraging. Should my right hon. Friend be continually successful with his anti-evasion campaign, will he use the additional revenue raised to reduce the rate of licence fee for old-age pensioners? Is he aware that many old-age pensioners in the twilight of their lives find television about the only source of enjoyment and communication with the outside world which is available to them?
    Sir J. Eden: The last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is another matter. With regard to the success of the campaign, I agree with my hon. Friend that it has been very
    438
    successful. About 300,000 to 400,000 licence evaders appear to have been brought within the net. I am sure it is right to maintain pressure in this quarter in some form.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his immediate predecessor admitted that the television detector vans did not enter the Republican areas of Belfast and Londonderry? Is my right hon. Friend now changing that situation as, according to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there is no longer a no-go area in Belfast? Will he say whether the detector vans will enter or have entered the Republican areas of Belfast?
    Sir J. Eden: The particular point that my hon. Friend has raised should more properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

    Television Reception (Wales)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many householders in Wales who are licensed for television reception are known to receive only one television channel through the medium of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority relay stations.
    Sir J. Eden: The BBC and the ITA tell me that approximately 36,000 households or 4 per cent. of the population of Wales can receive one television channel only.
    Mr. Hooson: Is the Minister aware that the reception of this one channel is often of very poor quality, that the area concerned covers a good deal of the hinterland of Wales and that a great deal of it is a Welsh-speaking area? The lack of choice between Welsh language and English language programmes and the poor reception are matters of great concern to those in Wales and are matters of increasing protest. What does the Minister intend to do about this?
    Sir J. Eden: With regard to the figures, I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer given by my predecessor on 8th March. On the second part of the supplementary question, I look forward to debating this whole subject in the Welsh Grand Committee shortly, I believe next week.
    Mr. Wiggin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who have recently purchased 625-line sets are able to receive only Welsh transmissions in the Welsh language? Will he investigate the position that what almost amounts to a fraud is being perpetrated on my constituents?
    Sir J. Eden: I am aware of certain local difficulties in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is not there something very odd about the pressure that the right hon. Gentleman is now under for a fourth television channel when in some parts of the country we cannot even view one channel properly on our television sets? Will he ask his engineers, who I know are looking at this problem at present, to examine whether they can take something from the proposals for a fourth channel and put it towards those who can receive nothing?
    Sir J. Eden: I do not think this has anything to do with a fourth channel. It has to do with the particular topographical features of some parts of the British Isles which make it both extremely difficult and expensive to bring good quality television pictures to some isolated communities in those parts.

    Public Telephones (Incoming Calls)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office to display prominently by all appropriate public telephones a notice to the effect that incoming calls may not be received and that the telephone bell does not function.
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The Post Office tells me that incoming call service is generally available but there may be a few instances where it has had to be temporarily suspended to prevent abuse of the facility. Such action including any publicity is a matter for its local managers.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is not the Minister aware that there is a large number of these cases, despite what he says? Has he never been caught in that very unenviable position of being in a coin
    440
    box and asking someone to call him back and finding that nothing happens? Does he not realise that this problem could be quite simply solved by the posting of a little notice in call boxes stating that incoming calls could not be received? There is a large number of such cases.
    Sir J. Eden: I have been assured that it is only in isolated cases where there are specific instances of abuse that this happens. But I am sure that the Post Office will have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    USSR (Jewish Citizens)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now protest to the Soviet authorities and to the International Telecommunications Union concerning the cutting off of telephone communication from the United Kingdom to Vladimir Slepak and other Soviet Jewish scientists, in contravention of the International Telecommunication Convention.
    Sir J. Eden: We would deplore any breach of the International Telecommunication Convention by any signatory but I regret I am not in a position to add to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member on 10th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 1292.]
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that since I tabled this Question Mr. Slepak and his elder son have both been arrested and imprisoned, that their telephone remains cut off and that the Soviet authorities have said that if the prayer book—signed by 200 hon. Members, including the Minister—which was sent to the younger son had been sent by post it would have been confiscated, which it appears to have been anyway since it has not been returned? Will the Minister now protest at this interference with ordinary, civilised freedom of communication?
    Sir J. Eden: The points to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred me do not, as he knows, arise directly from the Question, which deals with telephonic communications. I should like to look further into the particular matters he has put to me about the prayer book. But I believe that this matter is involving the Foreign Office.

    Postal Mechanisation
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received from the Post Office Board seeking a subsidy to assist in financing the Post Office's postal mechanisation programme.
    Sir J. Eden: None, Sir.
    Mr. Morris: Against the background of the statement that the Minister has made today about the financial position of the Post Office, will he assure the House that any financial economies which the Post Office Corporation may feel obliged now to introduce will not involve its mechanisation programme?
    Sir J. Eden: The reappraisal of the Post Office's overall mechanisation plans is taking place in the light of a downturn in postal traffic. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has nothing to do with the finances of the corporation.
    Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister give an assurance that, as mechanisation advances, the Post Office will undertake a study of a more simplified method of postal coding?
    Sir J. Eden: That is a matter for the Post Office Corporation to consider. I do not, however, know at present of any proposal to modify the postal code system which is in process of being introduced.
    Mr. Deedes: Arising out of this Question and an earlier Question about Post Office finance, will my right hon. Friend enter the thought into the mind of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House might exceptionally be invited to discuss some of these matters before and not after the next round of increases?
    Sir J. Eden: Opportunities for debate are matters for my right hon. Friend. I shall draw his attention to what my right hon. Friend has said. These opportunities will undoubtedly be assisted following publication of the Post Office's annual report.

    BBC (Programme Sponsorship)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what communications he has received relating to the exercise of his powers under Sec-
    442
    tion 12 of the British Broadcasting Corporation Licence and Agreement.
    Sir J. Eden: One, Sir.
    Mr. Whitehead: One is better than none. Is the Minister aware that tomorrow morning a shipload of Time-Life executives land on these shores to discuss with the BBC further collaborative ventures? Is he aware that the Time-Life organisation, which already makes large sums of money out of BBC sales abroad, has received free plugging on the BBC through advertisements over a period of months and that to some of us this is as shocking as the kind of sports programme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has referred? Is it not high time that the right hon. Gentleman gently told the BBC that these things are not consistent with Section 12 of the Licence and Agreement?
    Sir J. Eden: My views on these matters are exactly the same as those expressed by my predecessor in reply to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question on 1st March. I am sure that the BBC would be right jealously to guard its financial independence in these matters.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it may be right for the BBC to do so, it has not done so up to now? Many of us are very worried about this. If it happens again it must happen publicly so that we can see who is negotiating with whom and what terms of agreement have been made. We should not have a situation of an American firm having what appears to be a prescriptive right to make money out of the series on the British Empire.
    Sir J. Eden: Following the exchanges which took place in the House on 1st March, the BBC has taken careful note of what was said.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Housing
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector houses were started in 1971; how this compares with each year since 1961; and what steps he will take to stop a further decrease this year.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The figures are published in Housing Statistics, which I am sure is available to the hon. Gentleman. The trend has been downward since 1967. I am not prepared to make a forecast for this year but it is clear that we have produced a substantial upturn in the private sector and there is an improvement overall in starts this year on last.
    Mr. Allaun: Are not the figures released last week the worst for nine years? Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that most of the people in serious housing need cannot afford to buy their own houses, particularly at the new exorbitant prices? Therefore, would not the best encouragement be for the Government to abandon their declared intention of cutting subsidies by up to £200 million a year compared with what they would be in 1975 and to increase them instead?
    Mr. Amery: I recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He does not seem to accept the figures published by the Building Societies Association which show that more loans have been given to first-time purchasers than ever before, and more than ever before to people under the age of 25.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman desist from misleading the House and the country with regard to housing construction figures? Will he tell us the number of houses in both sectors under construction this month as compared with June, 1970? Is the number under construction today less than in June, 1970?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman has put a specific question and I would like notice of it. But in 1971 as compared with 1970 the picture of the national average was brighter and, even without the fair rents distribution subsidies, in stress areas such as greater London starts in the first quarter of this year were 9· per cent. up in the public sector. In Birmingham, as I told the House recently, the starts were 27 per cent. up in 1971 compared with 1970. The picture is therefore not altogether discouraging for the stress areas. Liverpool does not produce a very good report in the first quarter of this year, but Manchester shows an increase.

    Water Services
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the progress of his consultations on the reorganisation of water services.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): Consultations are under way over a wide range of matters in connection with reorganisation. Many useful comments have been received and full weight is being attached to them in the preparation of legislation.
    Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not recall, however, that the consultation is about the proposals contained in an appendix to a circular but that since then the Secretary of State has told me in a Written Answer that he does not intend to issue a White Paper? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that, after the extensive consultations which he has said are taking place and on which the Government place great reliance, it would be most appropriate for them to publish a White Paper on their intentions before the technicalities of the Bill are published?
    Mr. Speed: No, I do not think so. Further consultation papers are to be published shortly and we think that these will take care of the problem.

    Commercial Vehicles (Size and Weight)
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has now made in Brussels regarding the size and weight limits of commercial vehicles.
    Mr. Speed: The views of the Government on this subject will be presented under the agreed consultation procedures.
    Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that The Times has reported that M. Coppé, the EEC Commissioner responsible for transport, was left steaming with rage after his two-and-a-half hour meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries? Is my hon. Friend further aware how welcome it is that apparently at least one Minister is prepared to stand up robustly for British interests in Brussels? As there is something of a lorry crisis in many towns and villages even with the existing size of

    445
    lorries, can we have a categorical assurance that this matter will be regarded as one affecting the national interest in which the Government would insist on the right of veto in any agreement negotiated?
    Mr. Speed: We had better wait to see what happens when we have these consultations. I am not prepared to give my hon. Friend the assurance he asks for at this stage. I assure him, however, that not only my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries but all Ministers in the Department take environmental considerations very seriously—and steaming or not, we shall make our views known to those concerned in Europe.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that the Government will in no circumstances accept Community proposals which would plainly be damaging to this country?
    Mr. Speed: The Community's proposals are only guidelines at the moment. Many more consultations between ourselves and the other countries involved have yet to take place.

    Street Lighting (Conservation Areas)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy concerning the type, design and size of street lighting standards where lighting is deemed to be necessary in conservation areas.
    Mr. Speed: No hard and fast rules can be laid down. Each conservation area has its own character and what is suitable in one place may not be in another. The guidance I propose to issue to lighting authorities and to which I referred in the answer I gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on 26th April will also give these authorities greater flexibility in their choice of lighting standards in conservation areas.—[Vol. 835, c. 284.]
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose and beauty of many conservation areas are being utterly destroyed by the municipal monstrosities of street lighting which are out of all scale with the character and sympathy of such
    446
    areas? Will he seriously consider getting out a code of practice from the Department whereby local authorities should at least take into account environmental considerations as well as technical consequences?
    Mr. Speed: In a week or two a circular will be issued and my hon. Friend will then see that we have taken this point very much into account. It will represent a great step forward in improving lighting standards in these sensitive areas.

    Exhaust Fumes
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will expedite his study of the problem of exhaust fumes, in the light of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority report, a copy of which is in his pos session, that chemicals emitted in exhaust fumes are combining with sunlight to create smog conditions, and that dangerous pollution is being prevented only by climatic conditions.
    Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend has already announced his intention to introduce controls over the emission of carbon monoxide from vehicles and further measures to restrict hydrocarbon emissions. There is no evidence to suggest that photochemical smog is a significant hazard in this country.
    Mr. Dalyell: When will intention be translated into action?
    Mr. Amery: As always, the hon. Gentleman has put a good question. I am confident that the Government will produce a good answer shortly.
    Mr. Body: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the exhaust fumes of heavy lorries manufactured in France will add still more to the dangers of pollution here?
    Mr. Amery: I will look into the point.

    Youth and Voluntary Organisations
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to implement the proposals of the committee set up by him to assess the rôle of youth and voluntary organisations in the protection of the environment.
    Mr. Speed: The report has provided valuable material for the Stockholm conference and for the continuing work of my Department. I am grateful for the suggestion for an advisory committee on pop festivals, which my right hon. Friend is setting up under Mr. Dennis Stevenson's chairmanship.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the principal recommendation of the committee was that these organisations could do very little about the improvement of the environment themselves and that the best way would be for them to get Government finance to set up some kind of pressure group to pressurise the Government into doing a lot more in this matter? Are the Government prepared to do that?
    Mr. Speed: We are looking at the matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in a speech to the National Council of Social Service in December that we are doubling the central Government grants to voluntary bodies over the next four years. The question of pressure groups is certainly being taken seriously by the Government.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome the tone of the report. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the best ways of carrying out some of its recommendations would be to establish neighbourhood councils in our urban areas, as many of us have advocated during the passage of the Local Government Bill?
    Mr. Speed: I would not wish to anticipate the Report stage of that Bill.

    School Milk
    Mr. Dellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to draw to the attention of local authorities which are not education authorities their power under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, to spend up to a 0·46p rate on the provision of free school milk, a power which under the Local Government Bill will be possessed by local authorities covering the whole country.
    Mr. Speed: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dell: Why does not the hon. Gentleman wish these powers to be used, perhaps with the assistance of grants from the Department? Is he aware that I
    448
    have received a petition signed by 12,000 of my constituents asking for the restoration of free school milk? In the present atmosphere of public expenditure, surely their wish could be granted?
    Mr. Speed: We are following the admirable precedent of the Labour Government which withdrew school milk from secondary schools and did not issue this advice.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities, in Derbyshire at least, are having more than a little difficulty in defying the Government by providing school milk under the Finance Act, 1963, because ·46 of a penny is not adequate to cover 52 weeks? Will he help them to defy the Government all the year round?
    Mr. Speed: No, Sir.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how large a percentage of tenants he estimates will purchase their council houses at a 20 per cent. discount on market price; and how many more council houses he estimates will be sold this year under this arrangement.
    Mr. Amery: Local authorities reported sales of nearly 17,000 council houses in 1971 against just over 6,000 in 1970, an increase of about 170 per cent. In the first quarter of this year nearly 7,000 houses were sold—that is, more than the total sold in 1970—compared with 5,400 in the last quarter of 1971. The number of authorities involved rose from 316 to 358. I am sure that if all tenants who want to buy are allowed by their councils to do so there will be a substantial further increase this year, but I would hesitate to make a specific estimate.
    Mr. Rost: What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that every council tenant is given an opportunity to buy?
    Mr. AmeryAs my hon. Friend knows, we have felt that in the first instance at least this is a matter for the local authorities. But we are shortly issuing a very strong circular setting out our view that local authorities should sell council houses and urging them to adopt a realistic approach to the matter in the present circumstances.
    Mr. Freeson: In what way will this blanket ideological policy add one extra dwelling to meet the number required throughout the country? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect people in many areas living in local authority dwellings to be able to comply even with his new circular when prices are now running at £10,000 for local authority dwellings? Does he really expect ordinary people to be able to afford this kind of money.
    Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when discounts of 20 per cent. and even 30 per cent. are allowed, subject to certain conditions, the sale of council houses represents the very best bargain available to the would-be home owner at the present time. I do not think that the sale of such houses in any way interferes with the discharge of housing responsibilities by local authorities. Thanks to the rising cost subsidy, they now have nothing to stop them from building new houses where there is need.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Contract Cleaners
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations about conditions for contract cleaners employed by Her Majesty's Government he has now had from the Cleaners' Action Group; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have received no representations from the Cleaners' Action Group.
    Mr. Dalyell: I am not surprised, because the people we have talked to are concerned about their jobs and want to remain anonymous. Does not the fact remain that many of the conditions which operate for cleaners are almost Dickensian and that it is about time the Government looked not only at their own department but at the contractors who work for some of the most famous firms in the country? Could not some kind of serious inquiry be set up to look at cleaners' conditions?
    Mr. Baker: I am concerned about cleaners' conditions in the Civil Service. I am satisfied that they operate well and
    450
    I have nothing but praise for the splendid job the cleaners do. My responsibility is in the public sector. I am not responsible for conditions in the private sector.

    Latin American Seminar (Name Badges)
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister for the Civil Service why the name badges issued to businessmen who attended the seminar on Great Britain and Latin America organised by his Department were made in California.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: By chance. The name badges for this seminar, which was organised jointly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, were ordered from a registered British company which has factories in several other countries as well as in the United Kingdom. The badges were made up in the United Kingdom from stock blanks manufactured in California.
    Mr. Albu: Was this intended to give encouragement to British businessmen by advising them that the Government were more likely to buy abroad than at home?
    Mr. Baker: No, Sir. The policy of the Stationery Office in this matter is to buy as cheaply as it can from wherever it can. By far the greater part of the supplies of this company are manufactured in this country.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he had with the Civil Service unions on Regulation 2653/71/EEC of 11th December, 1971, dealing with the adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials of the European Communities and the remuneration of other servants of the Communities; what machinery exists under which those unions can propose alterations or amendments; and whether the House of Commons will be able to alter or amend it.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: It would not be appropriate for me to discuss this regulation with the Civil Service unions. On the last part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25th May, 1972.—[Vol. 837, c. 481.]
    Mr. Lewis: That is an astounding reply. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Civil Service unions are not entitled to discuss the matters affecting their hours, wages and conditions? Suppose that they want to refer a matter to the National Industrial Relations Court. Are we to take it that Brussels is to supersede the Industrial Relations Act and have power over our own industrial courts? Do the Government intend to do nothing to help their own civil servants concerning wages and conditions?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Member has broadened the subject rather widely. The staff of British nationals who will work in Brussels will number about 600 to 700, only some of whom will be civil servants. They will be employees of the Commission and will not be members of the British Civil Service. This is not therefore a matter for the Civil Service unions.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Six hundred to 700 bureaucrats in Brussels? Are they to have salaries, terms and conditions analogous to the bureaucrats at the United Nations? Will they be free of national taxation liability and thereby have an advantage over their compatriots who opt to serve at home?
    Mr. Baker: I confirm the figures I have given. It is likely that the full complement of the British delegation in Brussels will be between 600 and 700. We are very concerned that they should not all be civil servants but that some of them should have experience in business, in the trade unions and in other walks of life so that the delegation's contribution on behalf of the national interest shall be as great as possible.

RHODESIA (WANKIE COLLIERY DISASTER)
Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not to have a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order. I must insist that the House obeys the rules. Questions about whether Ministers make statements or not and the nature of their replies are not matters of order under the Standing
452
Orders. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day—
Later—
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Speaker. I raise a very serious point—
Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Biggs-Davison: This is a different point of order on a very serious matter which I believe affects the dignity of the House. I refer to the absence of a statement on the grievous mining disaster at Wankie in Rhodesia, a country for which Ministers claim responsibility. We have to learn from the Daily Express and not from the Treasury bench—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this. It is not a matter for the Chair and I have no power to direct Ministers to make statements and no right to criticise them for failing to do so. It is not a matter for the Chair. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day—
Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions in recent months the House has found itself in some difficulty over some matter. On many of these occasions some one on the Government Front Bench has intervened to help the House out of its difficulty. Today we have the situation in which there is no one on the Front Bench who could intervene to help the House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair has many responsibilities and many difficulties. Who sits on the Front Bench on either side is not my responsibility. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day—

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek guidance about Private Notice Questions for the benefit of private Members. While I am not seeking in any circumstances to challenge the absolute prerogative of the Chair to refuse any Private Notice Question, it is the fact that yesterday I endeavoured to give notice to you that I would try to elicit a statement. I wrote to you at 9 o'clock this morning asking for a Private Notice

453
Question on the railway dispute. and I have—
established convention of the House that an hon. Member cannot raise the subject of a Private Notice Question and the refusal of it or disclose its nature. Until I am ordered otherwise by the House acting on a report of the Select Committee on Procedure I must insist upon that rule. Any reference to whether a Private Notice Question is allowed or not is completely out of order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day—
Sir G. Nabarro: I am not challenging that point at all, Mr. Speaker. If you had allowed me to complete my sentence—
Mr. Speaker: Where the hon. Member broke the rule was in referring to the fact that he had submitted a Private Notice Question and that I had refused it. The hon. Member broke the rule. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day—
Sir G. Nabarro: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. If an hon. Member seeks to put a Private Notice Question, would it not be courteous for him to be advised before the House meets at 2.30 p.m. whether or not Mr. Speaker has allowed the Private Notice Question? This has always been the custom of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you for the same courtesy from the Chair today.
Mr. Speaker: That is a different point of order. My office certainly tries to indicate as quickly as possible to the hon. Member who seeks to ask the Private Notice Question whether it will be permitted, and if there was any mistake today I apologise. It is the purpose of my office to let hon. Members know as quickly as possible, but some hon. Members try to find out whether their questions have been allowed or not.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

    Clause 34
    CONVERSION OF CONTROLLED TENANCIES: GENERAL DECONTROL
    3.38 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 104, in page 29, line 2, leave out 'January' and insert 'October'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 105, in page 29, line 4, leave out 'January' and insert 'October'
    Mr. Brown: I am sure every one of us will feel sympathy for those involved in the disaster in Rhodesia. Perhaps this is parochial nationalism because we have enough disasters to contend with with the Government in Scotland.
    An Amendment similar to this Amendment, but not identical, was moved in Committee. I wish to obtain from the Minister some up-to-date figures of the number of houses that are involved. There seems to be some doubt about this. The generally accepted figure was that there were still 100,000 houses subject to possible decontrol in Scotland of which we think 40,000 are in Glasgow. In Committee and during subsequent proceedings the Under-Secretary broke the figure down to show how it will be affected by the Clause. He said that it was roughly estimated that 30,000 houses would be involved in each of the three specified periods set out in subsection (2), but some of us have doubts about that.
    I have some difficulty in dealing with the matter and I make no apology for exposing my lack of detailed knowledge because it is a most complicated subject. But I would have thought that following the phasing of decontrol under the 1969 Act there should now no longer be any houses which are not subject to decontrol.

    455
    Perhaps I could explain that, because it is not too clear to me and I can understand if hon. Members who are as ignorant as I am on the subject do not understand my point.
    Section 51 of the 1969 Act gave the phasings under which valuations of £45 or more would come under decontrol in January, 1971, those between £30 and £45 by July, 1971, and the remainder from 1st January, 1972. What I do not understand, and what my researches have not shown in detail, is why we are still discussing 100,000 houses. Whether or not action was taken under the 1969 Act, it could have been taken and can still be taken. If houses are below the rateable value laid down in that Act, they are eligible for decontrol in the sense that either the landlords or the tenants can seek fair rents. If I am right in that assumption and we are left, according to the Minister's figures, with 100,000 houses liable for decontrol on the basis of the three phasings in Clause 34(2), what does the Minister think will be the progress in getting to complete decontrol?
    I presume that the figures in the Bill do little more than take into account the revaluations of properties in 1971; in other words, the £45 is increased to £50 as a result of the revaluation figures. But has the Minister any evidence that there have been substantial revaluations in the case of the 100,000 houses that we are discussing? In his calculations, what difference has revaluation made to the figure of 30,000 houses in each of the three categories? We suspect that the bulk will be in the third category and have the lowest rateable values, and those are houses which we insist do not merit a single penny on the rent because of the shocking state of most of them. We are entitled to some more information from the Minister than we were able to get in Committee.
    I do not know whether revaluation will have any effect on future rent levels in the private sector. It has always been one of the main arguments that revaluations of council houses were based largely on rents and amenity groupings. It is surprising that a city assessor should ignore the amenity groupings worked out by the corporation. What effect will any change in valuation have on the three categories referred to by the Minister?
    456
    The Amendments do not affect the principle. All that we seek to do is to postpone the applicable date from 1st January to 1st October in the two years 1973 and 1974. They are modest and practical Amendments which will help smooth the administrative duties of rent officers. One of the major concessions to which the Minister has agreed is to reword the form issued by rent officers. Big deal! However, the hon. Gentleman will require the co-operation of rent officers since he will be adding to their burdens. I believe that the Amendments are modest, practical and sound, and I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept them.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), described his Amendments as "modest, practical and sound". Those of us who know the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a very practical description of himself. When he presents a case to the House, he always does it in a reasonable way. However, having heard his argument in support of these Amendments, I am still not clear why he wants to change the dates.
    Why should we change January to October? Either the provision is a bad one or it is a good one. If there is to be a postponement, why should we have such a postponement? I cannot understand why. Very rightly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the provisions of the 1961 Act which is now consolidated in the 1971 Act. My understanding is the same as his—namely, that under the previous legislation every privately rented unfurnished house in Scotland which could obtain a qualification certificate could, under the existing legislation, be brought within the fair rent arrangements. It appears to me that if we postpone from January to October the date in line 2 of subsection (2) it will mean that the provisions of the existing legislation will apply, and, of course, regulation or decontrol can take place under that legislation. To that extent, I cannot see any merit in changing the date from January to October. We should simply continue the life of the existing legislation and postpone the coming into force of this Bill.
    Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell me whether my assumption is

    457
    correct that every single privately rented unfurnished house can be brought within the fair rent arrangements now in accordance with Section 77 of the 1971 Act, whether or not we have the proposed subsection and whether or not we have this Bill? My understanding is that Section 77 of the 1971 Act provides that all houses with rateable values of £45 or more could be brought within the fair rent system as from 1st January, 1971, that houses with valuations up to £45 but not less than £30 could be brought into regulation on 1st January, 1971, and that houses with valuations of less than £30 could be brought within the fair rent system on 1st January, 1972. That last date has passed. Therefore the effect of the Amendments would be to postpone nothing except for those houses for which qualification certificates could not be obtained.
    This is a question of principle and not a question of time. I cannot see the argument for saying that we should have 1st October instead of 1st January. Therefore, my first question to my hon. Friend is: what would be the practical effect? Would it simply mean that the 1971 Act would continue to apply to these houses until the date specified in the Amendment?
    My second question is to ask whether my hon. Friend believes that rent officers will be able to cope with the date which he proposes and which the hon. Member for Provan seeks to amend. It is alarming to hear, as we did in Committee, about the number of houses which may be affected by the new arrangements. When we talk about 30,000 or even 20,000 houses, do we believe that rent officers will be able to undertake the task on the due date? At present, rent officers are very busy people. In some cases they are run off their feet bringing in fair rents under the 1969 Act. Certainly this is so in Glasgow and elsewhere. Obviously there will be a considerable expansion of their work. If we are to have rent officers within seven days calling on every house where a notice is given to discuss the position with the tenant and advise him of his rights, will not that in itself mean that the work of rent officers will be substantially increased and, to that extent, that there may be difficulty in meeting the dates proposed?
    458
    My third question relates to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Provan that the relevant date in respect of houses with valuations of £50 and more should be October, 1973, and that that for houses with valuations between £25 and £50 it should be October, 1974. Presumably we are still left with the date of 1st January, 1975, for those with values of less than £25.
    Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman should look at the next Amendment.
    Mr. Taylor: I have done so. It says that we should leave out "January" and insert "October" in line 4—
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to mislead the House. If he looks at Amendment No. 106 he will see that it is proposed to delete from the Bill altogether all houses with valuations below £25. The hon. Gentleman must not try to suggest that we are not worried about houses with valuations less than £25.
    Mr. Taylor: I was about to come to that. Amendment No. 106 suggests that we should leave out from "£25"to the end of line 8. That would have the result of deleting all reference to houses of this sort. I am simply suggesting that if we are proposing to do the job in a period of one year from October to October, rent officers may be involved in substantial additional work. I am concerned to know whether they will be able to cope.
    My next question has some relevance to the dates of January, 1973, and 1974. When will the rent allowance scheme come into force? We have had a number of assurances. However, if we are to agree to 1st January, 1973, and not to October, it is crucial that we should have a clear assurance not only that the rent allowance scheme will be operating on 1st January, 1973, but that tenants of private houses will have had full details of the scheme before then so that they are in a position to take advantage of it as from the date when the rent increases apply under the subsection.
    The rent allowance scheme is very significant. Let us take, for example, a rent of £2·50, which is the kind of figure which has been discussed a great deal. Let us take the case of a married man who has two children and earns £20 a

    459
    week. It appears from the tables with which we have been supplied, and which are subject to adjustment because of the increase in supplementary benefits, that the rent payable will be only £1·25. In other words, the man with two children earning £20 per week will have to pay only £1·25 on 1st January, 1973, instead of £2·50—
    Mr. John Robertson: That is what many are paying now.
    Mr. Taylor: I had that point in mind, but I did not want to rub it in too much. Under existing legislation, houses of this sort can have their rents increased to £2, £3, £4, £5, or even £6 a week, and there is no protection under a rent allowance scheme.
    This was one of the major defects in the previous legislation which has to be put right. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) is right to draw attention to the fact that at present tenants on low incomes have no protection whatever, apart from the protection which they can obtain from supplementary benefits. To that extent, the rent allowance scheme is crucial to those tenants who will be affected by the subsection. I should like a clear assurance from my hon. Friend that if we accept the date of January as opposed to October, not only will the scheme be introduced as from 1st January but tenants will have the full details and an application form to send in so that it can become effective as from the date of the first stage of the rent increase.
    The next thing I want to ask about deals with the date of 1st January, 1973. Can my hon. Friend say whether he believes that this target can be met, bearing in mind the increasing number of houses which are having their rents reviewed every three years in terms of the 1965 Act? We are talking about controlled houses which will be subject to fair rents. Those of us who have discussed these matters with rent officers are aware that a large part of their work is to do not with bringing houses out of control and into the fair rents system but with the three-yearly reviews of houses which have already been brought into the fair rents procedure. With most of these houses the initial work of the rent officers took place two, three or four
    460
    years ago. Quite a substantial backlog has been built up and these houses will have to be inspected and their rents reviewed every three years. Can we have some idea whether this date might be affected by these reviews?
    While I am always sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan I cannot for the life of me see that there is any special case for fixing this date of October instead of January, because unless there is a practical problem—and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given any indication of one—it seems that no question of principle arises. I can see that there is an important question of principle about whether we should introduce into the fair rents system houses for which a qualification certificate cannot be granted, and we have discussed this in Committee. There is also an important point of principle about whether we should have a rent allowance scheme and whether houses which are controlled should be brought within fair rents.
    Since I cannot see that there is any such question of principle raised by the hon. Gentleman, we have to consider whether there is a practical problem. From the information that I have been given, I cannot see that any practical problem would arise. On the other hand. we want to know whether there is any reason in practice why the date of 1st January cannot be met. Bearing in mind that 1st January, 1973, brings in all houses of £50 or more, we should like to know whether the revaluations have increased the numbers to such an extent that there will be more than is contained in the second section, namely those coming in on 1st January, 1974.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has attempted in his usual fashion to pretend that many of the evils from which tenants suffer are the results of Labour Government legislation and that all kinds of inequities are being visited upon Scottish tenants. If rents in Scotland for private accommodation are so high and so many houses have been decontrolled since the 1969 Act, one wonders why the Government have found it necessary to introduce this Bill.
    In Committee the Under-Secretary pointed out that one of the reasons why

    461
    the Bill was so essential was that the average rent in private rented accommodation in Scotland was £16 per annum. He said this as reported in column 1880 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Rents of less than £16 per annum are quite common and it is not necessary to be a mathematician of any repute to understand that the rents in some cases must be well below £16 to produce an average of £16. If the Minister was saying that landlords are so rapacious that they are pushing up rents and the Bill was needed to introduce the rent allowance scheme, there might be some sense in it, but for the hon. Member to say that it is all the Labour Party's fault just does not stand up to any logic.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The simple fact is that every single private rented house in Scotland, except for those that could not get a qualification certificate, could have its rent increased under the legislation enacted by the previous Government—and with no protection.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Francis Committee said that the best protection for private tenants in Scotland was the low level of council house rents, that as long as there was that low level landlords would find it impossible to get the rents they wanted. The Francis Committee said that the difficulty was that the rent officers and rent assessment committees were unable to let things go because of this built-in resistance to increased rents.
    One big practical advantage of the Amendments is that perhaps by the time the dates for decontrol arrive the Government will have done some homework. It is astonishing that a Government should introduce a Bill of this kind and yet be unable to produce the figures for the number of houses within each category and the standard of such houses. We asked for that information in Committee and now that it has been given the figures are incredible. I have not read every word of HANSARD for yesterday and I was not in the Chamber for every minute of the debate, but I have not seen any correction of the figure of 215,000 houses below the tolerable level.
    The Government have been in office for almost two years. It is longer than that since they were boasting about how they would push rents up. If they still
    462
    do not know the basic housing facts then it is time they postponed their proposals to see what will happen. The Labour Government set up the Francis Committee to discover the effect of their legislation. This Government have done nothing to discover what will happen as a result to these proposals. We suspect the worst, and we suspect that houses with intolerable conditions will be subject to rent increases. Until the Government find out what sort of accommodation they are dealing with they ought not to proceed, and, if for that reason alone, I support the Amendments.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I share the view of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) in finding a great deal of difficulty in understanding this Bill. I suspect that I am not the only person in that category.
    Mr. John Brewis: I understand it perfectly.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary certain questions. It may be that postponement would be satisfactory, I do not know. I have not had any information from Edinburgh, but then I very seldom do get any information from that Corporation. I should be glad to know whether my hon. Friend has received any representations on the point.
    In my constituency there are a number of people who own houses which have been controlled and the result has been that these people cannot afford to carry out repairs to these houses. I have had a few of them coming to me about this. As I understand it, the Bill will give them some chance to put these repairs in hand. If it does it is a good thing, because the houses may be sound enough. If they can be put into good order, so much the better.
    If we accept this Amendment, it seems that we put back the opportunity that these people will have to make the improvements, and I cannot believe that that is a good idea. I see that if tenants of these houses are suddenly faced with rent increases they may be in some difficulty and I have great sympathy with them. Therefore I am anxious to know whether this rent allowance scheme will come into operation at the same time or

    463
    earlier. This was the point my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) raised and it seems very important. If it comes in at the same time, in January, then it will be all right but if there is a difference in timing, I am not so sure about it.
    Secondly, can my hon. Friend tell me whether there was anything in previous housing legislation such as this rent allowance scheme or is this a new proposal? I admit that I am not well up in housing, I find it extremely complicated. [Laughter.] At least I am quite honest about it. I should like to know whether this is a new proposal or whether such a scheme has been used in previous legislation. If not, was this a failure in the legislation introduced by the Labour Government?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: I have not spoken very much on the Bill. I will restrict myself to those matters. If my hon. Friend can answer the questions I have put, I shall be gratified.
    Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) drew the attention of the House to the figure of £16 annual rent which my hon. Friend gave in the Committee proceedings and thereby underlined what a great mistake it would be to accept these Amendments, particularly the second one, which would put back from 1st January, 1974, to 1st January, 1975, the time when the Measure would apply to houses with a value of between £50 and £25. It is surely in these houses above all others that we need to have the improvements done. This must be the area of housing where the greatest good could be done by bringing the Bill into force at the earliest moment.
    The longer we delay in improving old houses the more difficult it is to make the improvements. For many years in Scotland we have suffered from a low level of rents which has not allowed the landlords to carry out the necessary repairs and improvements. We should make certain that we do not put the date back from 1974 to 1975 for houses between £50 and £25. Not so much harm would
    464
    be done if we delayed it for houses of £50 or more but for the former category it would be the gravest mistake to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: There are three points involved in this Amendment: first, the number of houses involved; secondly, the load on rent officers at present; and, thirdly, the timing of the rent allowance scheme. I wholly support the principle and aim of the Bill in this respect, but it will involve difficulties for tenants of these particular houses. We want to be satisfied that they will not be adversely affected because of the undue pressure or difficulties involved in the implementation of the Clause.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I suggest that the Opposition's proposal to delay the starting point for the decontrol of these two categories of houses from January to October each year should not be accepted as being to the benefit either of housing generally in Scotland or of the tenants who are living in these houses.
    I will say a word or two about these Amendments and then try to answer as briefly as I can all the matters which have been raised by hon. Members.
    Under Clause 34(2) the conversion of controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies will take place in three annual stages according to the rateable valuations of the properties. The earliest date is 1st January, 1973. That is the date applicable to a dwelling house which has the highest of these values; that is, a rateable value of £50 or more. 1st January, 1974, is the date applicable to a dwelling house which has a rateable value of less than £50 but not less than £25. 1st January, 1975, is the date applicable to a dwelling house which has a rateable value of less than £25. We will discuss that aspect on a later Amendment.
    The effect of these two Amendments would be to postpone the first two stages of this conversion for 10 months from January to October in the years in question. I should make it clear that the situation brought about by rent control over the many years it has existed is inconsistent with the requirements of logic, justice and good housing.
    Mr. John Robertson: Will the Under-secretary accept that most of the houses in these categories were never in any sense good houses, that they were always slums, and should be put out of existence right away?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the feelings of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) on this matter. These houses were fairly old by the time I had a chance to see them. That is another argument, to which I shall come later and which we covered in quite considerable detail yesterday; namely, whether it is just for a fair rent to be assessed for a house which is not of a high standard provided that fair rent reflects the standard of the house.
    Mr. Robertson: There is no such thing as a fair rent.
    Mr. Younger: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I respect his point of view, that there is no such thing as a fair rent. Neither I nor the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends who formed the Government which introduced the fair rent system believed that there was no such thing.
    Rent control is, in effect, an obligation on certain persons to provide housing accommodation and to maintain it to the best of their ability for others in an area and age of steadily rising costs, and to maintain it with a financial return which is at least 15 years out of date. That arises because controlled rents have remained absolutely fixed since 1957. This obligation takes no account of the means of the owner of the property, nor of the occupant of the property. It obliges the owner, whoever he or she may be, to try to maintain the house on an average income of less than £16 a year or approximately 30p a week.
    I ask every hon. Member, however strongly he may feel about housing matters, to think how he would get on trying to maintain his own house—those who have their own houses, which is probably most hon. Members—on a total budget of £16 a year.
    Mr. Frank McElhone: The Under-Secretary is displaying a great lack of knowledge in this matter. I re-emphasise a point that I made yesterday. Most of the flats the Under-Secretary is talking about are
    466
    tenemental properties. Anyone who represents areas like that knows that on average 50 per cent. of flats within these properties have been sold for more than the value of the whole property. In my opinion, there is no likelihood of any property owner spending any of that gross profit on any of these substandard houses. The Under-Secretary knows that.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: That may or may not be the case. I have no doubt that in some instances, which the hon. Gentleman from his knowledge could probably cite, that may be so. I am referring to a house under rent control and, therefore, not able to be sold which is nevertheless expected to be kept in good repair on a total budget of £16 a year.
    I accept the point made in Committee that many of these houses—
    Mr. Robertson: Most of them.
    Mr. Younger: —possibly most of them—are in tenement blocks. Therefore, if an expensive roof repair is necessary it may be that it will be shared between a number of different properties and that the repair would not have to be carried out within a £16 budget. However, that does not alter the fact that, if hon. Members search their own records of the simplest repairs to their own houses—to a window sash, a drainpipe or a leaking pipe—they will find that any one of those items of repair will cost nearly £16? There is no point in pretending anything but the truth. To expect a house to be kept in repair for that amount of money is not on unless the person doing so is prepared to subsidise it.
    Mr. Robertson: I know that we are probably giving the Under-Secretary more ammunition, but does he not realise that when it comes to repairing a cluggie, or the common toilet, serving about 12 households, it may be that the house is not worth repairing. When it comes to the "jam-box" or the facilities at the window of a living room-cum-bedroom-cum-every other room, it may be that the property is not worth saving. People are still paying rent for these properties. As the money that was spent in building them has long since been recovered, it may be that the best thing is to knock them down and not to talk in this fashion

    467
    about saving them. This kind of housing is not worth saving.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent and correct description of the results of years and years of rent control. It may be that some of the houses which he is probably accurately describing as now not worth maintaining would have been worth maintaining if this provision had been made for them 20 years ago. They would now have been providing, instead of shaky and undesirable accommodation, good accommodation because they would have been kept in good repair.
    I respect the views of hon. Members who feel strongly that the only thing that matters is the rent that the occupant pays. They may feel that keeping property in good condition should be the responsibility of someone else. My point is that unless we are to see more of these houses falling into the sort of state the hon. Member for Paisley has described we must do something about it. It would be a cowardly Government that shirked taking action, all too late, to ensure that some of these houses are saved from falling into the state that others have fallen into through previous Governments not having had the courage to do this.
    I do not want to be ungenerous to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), because they had the courage to start this process by introducing the fair rents system. I respect them for doing that, because it must have been difficult for them. They introduced it—rightly—and we are trying to extend it to more properties, which perhaps they did not have time to do while they were in office. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman never thought that he would hear me say that, but I assure him, that I mean it, and I know that he will accept it that way.
    Mr. Peter Doig: The hon. Gentleman has repeated what he said in Committee; namely, that it is impossible to keep houses in repair for £16 a year. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much local authorities spend on the repair of their houses?
    Mr. Younger: I could not give the hon. Gentleman a detailed explanation without notice.
    Mr. Doig: An approximate figure will do.
    Mr. Younger: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure for the cost of repairs to local authority houses, but repairs are carried out, and under the Bill for the first time they will be partly subsidised through the housing expenditure subsidy, which will be a valuable help.
    Mr. William Baxter: For the sake of accuracy, and in order to help my hon. Friends, I think that we have to be reasonable and honest when we are debating this matter. When I was a member of the Stirlingshire County Council, our experience was that it would have been much more beneficial to the ratepayers of the county, because of these excessive costs of repairs, to have given the houses away free to the sitting tenants. By so doing we would have been able to reduce the rates There is a problem here which has to be solved. Whether the method that has been suggested is correct is a matter for debate, discussion and decision, but the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he has said.
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opinion. He has had a lot of experience in these matters, in both private and local authority tenancies. Although it is sometimes uncomfortable to face the truth, we must face it, and any Government with any sense of responsibility must do so. I had hoped that on this issue we would have had a little more support than we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    The other problem, which is much more difficult for us to face, is that in many cases we have been relying on the landlord to subsidise the repair of these properties. I have no doubt that that is acceptable when the landlord is a big company or somebody with plenty of money. But there are many small landlords who own one or two small properties which they would very much rather not own. It is not fair to expect them to subsidise the repair of houses. We must try to solve that problem and put right the anomalies of the past.
    Mr. Robertson: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the property racket in Scotland. Many of these houses never were satisfactory. Even when they were brand new they were sub-standard. Does the hon. Gentle-

    469
    man know that some property companies are demanding a deposit of £16 against the possibility of somebody absconding and not paying his electricity bill? Does the hon. Gentleman know about the level of rents which they are demanding, or about the threats which they are making? Is the hon. Gentleman with it? When I hear him speaking from that Dispatch Box, I wonder whether he spends any time in Scotland, apart from in houses costing £20,000 or more. Has he no knowledge of the horrible places in which people live, for which they are asked to pay £16 a year? The figure is far too high.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not in Committee now. This is the Report stage.
    Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman is right, and £16 a year is far too high, that is precisely what the rent officers are for. They will, and do, fix fair rents which are below the existing figure where the condition of the property demands it. I have a number of examples which I could have given last night. I threatened to list them but, in the interests of time, I did not do so. I must press on with my speech, because I have given way a number of times.
    Both justice and the need to preserve the housing stock require a change as soon as possible in the present unsatisfactory position. Nevertheless, the needs of both practicality and of the tenant's interest must be, and are, provided for in the Bill as it stands. Provision is made for the conversion to take place by stages, starting on 1st January, 1973. This date was chosen with the tenant's interests in mind—and this deals with the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison)—because this is the date on which the rent allowance scheme will come into effect. We do not think that it would have been right to have brought in this new Measure without a rent allowance scheme to protect those tenants of lesser means from the effects of the higher rents which some of them will have to pay. It weighs a little heavily on the conscience of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they introduced a fair rents scheme without thinking of people on lower incomes. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenock did not decontrol these houses.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Precisely.
    Mr. Younger: But the hon. Member did decontrol some houses, and he introduced a fair rents system. He was right to do that, but, with respect to him, he was wrong to do it without introducing a rent allowance system to protect those on lower incomes who could not afford the fair rents placed on them. It redounds to the credit of the Government that they have brought in rent allowances for these people for the first time. I think that we are entitled to blow our own trumpet and say that that is a great advance which many people will welcome and benefit from.
    The Bill includes a further protection for tenants whose tenancies will be converted under Clause 34. The phasing provided for by Clause 36 and Schedule 6 ensures that those tenants who do not qualify for a rent allowance, as well as those who do, will have any increases in rent phased over two years, long enough for them to adjust their personal spending.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: On the question of rent allowances, my hon. Friend has given an assurance that the new scheme will come in on 1st January, 1973. It would help if he could say that details of the scheme will be published, and perhaps application forms issued, so that tenants will be able to apply for an allowance on the date on which the rent increases apply. May I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that details of the scheme will be circulated some weeks before the date of its coming into operation?
    Mr. Younger: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I shall, in a moment, come to the question of giving information about the scheme.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) asked how much local authorities spend on repairs to their property. I have some very round figures which I hope will be of interest to the House. Total repair and management expenditure per house—this is the Scottish average of these figures—in 1970–71 was £34 per house. In the previous year, 1969–70, it was £28 per house. The only point I make is that those figures are very much more than the £16 per house to which I referred a few moments ago.

    471
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart asked whether rent officers would be able to cope with the additional work imposed on them, and this matter was referred to yesterday. I assure my hon. Friend that I am satisfied that rent officers will be able to cope with the extra work. There are the equivalent of 23 full-time rent officers in Scotland, and we are proposing to appoint a further 30 before the end of the year. I think that that number will be adequate to cope with any extra work involved.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) asked two questions. He asked, first, about the figure given by my right hon. Friend yesterday of 215,000 houses below the tolerable standard. The hon. Gentleman said that he was doubtful about that figure. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend, as I would expect, was absolutely correct. That is the best estimate that can be made of houses of all types—private, owner-occupied and council.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The question was related not to the figure of 215,000 but to whether it referred to all types of houses and not just rented accommodation.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: I thought that my right hon. Friend had made that plain, but I am glad to repeat it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart asked whether it would have been possible for all the houses mentioned in this Clause to have fair rents assessed under the qualification certificate procedure. This is correct. It would have been and still is possible for them to be transferred if the issue of a qualification certificate can be given. After the passing of this Bill, it will still be possible for houses which are in the second or third category and, therefore, not due to come into decontrol for a year or two to be brought in earlier, provided that a qualification certificate is issued and approved at the time of application.
    I was also asked about the figures for each of these categories which will be decontrolled under the Bill. I confirm that we calculate that there are about 100,000 houses involved, about 30,000 in each of
    472
    the three categories mentioned in the Clause. I hope that that will now be accepted as the best estimate we can make in an area in which the obtaining of information is difficult. I mentioned this in Committee, reported in c. 1878 on 25th April, 1972.
    As to the source of this information, the hon. Member for Greenock will remember that at the end of 1969 local authorities were asked in a circular to report their assessment of the problem and the lines of their plan of action. Up to date, 162 authorities have given information in one form or another, giving a total of about 215,000 houses below the tolerable standard. Most of the authorities which have not submitted specific estimates are small burghs, and it is estimated that, when allowance is made for them and for the number which may have been dealt with since 1969, the total number of houses is probably still about 215,000.
    I can confirm that tenants will be given information about the Bill before 1st January, 1973. The Department will be publishing explanatory leaflets which will be obtainable free from rent officers and local authority offices and will be available as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted. The contents cannot, of course, be finalised until the Bill is in its final form, and a little time will be needed for printing, but they will be available well before the end of the year and well before 1st January, 1973, when the rent allowance system should apply.
    Similarly, local authorities will publicise their rent allowance schemes under Clause 19, and my right hon. Friend hopes to make the necessary direction order under that Clause soon after the Bill is enacted. Landlords will be obliged under Clause 20 to inform tenants of their rights in the matter.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart asked about the practical effect of these Amendments. They would simply postpone the dates on which controlled tenancies would be converted into regulated tenancies under Clause 34, and it would remain possible for a controlled tenancy to be converted earlier on the date of the issue of a qualification certificate under the 1969 Act, as consolidated into the 1971 Act.
    I believe that the acceptance of these two Amendments would fly directly in

    473
    the face of all the needs of housing in Scotland and tenants in Scotland. Although it would postpone the qualification of fair rents by ten months for these categories, it would certainly not be in the long-term interests of those tenants or of getting better housing by arresting the decline and decay of so many of our houses in and around the cities.
    It would have been far easier for the Goverment not to attempt to do anything about this problem. We could have left it to drift on, as our predecessors have done for years. But we have not done that. We have deliberately taken a step which is long overdue, to try to put right this long-term scandal, which has been the failure of ourselves and our predecessors in previous years to face this dreadful problem and instead to let houses decay in the streets before our very eyes, while still allowing people to live in them. This is something of which we should be thoroughly ashamed, and I am glad that this Government have had the guts to face up to it.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am delighted to support my hon. Friend's arguments against these Amendments. We hear a great deal from hon. Members opposite about the machinations of the property company. Some of us, certainly in my part of Scotland, see something of the effect that years and years of controlled tenancy rents have had on individual private landlords. These are not large property companies. I am thinking of people who have been to see me and on whose behalf I wrote time and again to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) when he was responsible for these matters, to call attention to the crying injustice that was being done to these people.
    They are often elderly retired people with a pension to live on, who hoped when they invested their savings in them many years ago that there would be some return from one, two or three individual properties.
    In one case, details of which I sent to the hon. Member for Greenock, an elderly lady had a property of three rooms built in 1938. This is not the sort of derelict and collapsed slum tenement to which the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) was referring. This lady re-
    474
    ceives for that a rent of £25 a year. On that she is expected to maintain the property in proper repair. As my hon. Friend demonstrated, she cannot possibly do it. This is substantially less than the average sum spent by a local authority on maintaining each of its houses.
    In another rather instructive case, on one side of a stair is a flat let at a furnished rent of £4 a week while on the other side is a controlled tenancy—an exactly similar property—at a rent of £16 a year. The owner of the second flat was an elderly pensioner who was expected to maintain the property.
    If we accepted the Amendments, we should be postponing yet further the operation of fair rents for this type of property, which in many cases will not move on to the fair rents system anyway until January, 1976, or January, 1977, because of the application of Schedule 6.
    The refusal of hon. Gentlemen opposite to face facts is in large measure the reason for the amount of derelict property we have in Scotland today. It has been made impossible for this property to be maintained adequately, and with every week that passes more and more of it is going beyond the point of recovery. Landlords simply cannot afford to maintain it at the controlled rents they are receiving. The Amendment would prolong this state of affairs and put many more houses beyond the point of no return.
    With the extension of the rent rebate scheme, coming into operation at the same time as the second part of subsection (2), we are ensuring that adequate protection is given against hardship. This is happening not before time. We have a chance of saving many of these houses because landlords will be able to maintain them adequately. I therefore strongly support the Minister in resisting the Amendment.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: The Minister mentioned two figures of considerable significance. If there were any argument in favour of the Amendment, it would be that delay is necessary, but the Bill was first published in November of last year. Considerable time has elapsed for people to become aware of what is proposed. There must be time for rent officers to take the action that will be necessary to meet the requirements of the legislation.

    475
    In this connection, I was relieved to hear the Minister say that the number of rent officers will be considerably increased from 23 to 53. May we be told how the additional officers will be recruited, what experience they will have had in the housing sphere and what training they will be given before being called on to carry out their new duties?
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), referring I think to the Francis Committee, claimed that a low level of council house rents in Scotland was the best protection for tenants of private property. Protection of what kind? I assume he means protection by the establishment of some sort of rent norm which, if low, will help to keep the rents of private property similarly low.
    That argument does not stand examination. The average rent of private property in Scotland in 1971 was £16 a year, compared with an average of £79 in the public sector, showing a very large gap indeed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been so consistently and irresponsibly opposed to the Bill and its purpose from the beginning that they are now posing as the protectors of tenants in Scotland.
    4.45 p.m.
    I assume that hon. Gentlemen opposite have forgotten their record, and this brings me back to the average private rent figure of £16. During the time that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was in charge of Scotland's affairs, rents doubled. Either he or his then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), claimed that as a result of their prices and incomes policy they had somehow kept rents at an even level. In fact, during the years when Labour's prices and incomes policy applied—1967, 1968, and 1969—average rents in Scotland went up by 52 per cent. That happened between 1967 and 1970.
    The £16 rent is interesting in that in the two years between 1967 and 1969 average local authority rents in Scotland went up from £48 in 1967 to £64 in 1969 and £74 and more in 1970. Let us therefore have no more nonsense about hon. Gentlemen opposite protecting tenants. They allowed rents to double, and it is wrong for them to pose now
    476
    as the protectors of the people. By their policies, thousands of people in Scotland have been condemned to live in decrepit property, simply because of the hatred of hon. Gentlemen opposite of any kind of private ownership.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that he should have made the speech which he is now making before the municipal elections?
    Mr. MacArthur: I see at what the hon. Gentleman is aiming. Before the municipal elections I was warning electors about the misrepresentations which they would be hearing about this legislation from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and how right I was to issue that warning. Indeed, the Labour Party was circulating leaflets in Perth saying that rents would be doubled. That statement was false. The only time when rents were doubled was when Labour Members were in power.
    It is clear that something must be done to help people living in decaying property. I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) that many Scottish houses are a disgrace, primarily because of the absurdly low rent levels which have existed for many years. How can landlords begin to keep their houses in good repair on a return of only £16 a year?
    The second significant figure to which the Minister referred was the cost of repairing local authority houses in Scotland. If that cost were £34 last year, and private landlords are receiving on average rents of only £16 a year, how can private property be kept in decent repair? The vast bulk of the local authority houses to which the Minister was referring are much more modern than the bulk of private property in Scotland, which naturally needs more money spending on it.
    The position is nosensical and hon. Gentlemen opposite had the courage, when they were in office, to begin the process of having reasonable rents. They should be reminded of that. We are simply extending that process, in my view wisely.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley that there are many horrible properties in Scotland. The standard of much of our housing is a disgrace to the nation, and this points to the fact that

    477
    the present housing system, the whole structure of subsidies and the approach of successive Governments to rents have been wrong.
    If we are interested in achieving adequate standards in Scotland, the system must be changed and direct help given where it is needed. For the first time ever, rent allowances will be provided to help tenants of private proper-
    ties who will face rent increases and who will have to accept them if they are to live in the decent housing conditions we all want to see in Scotland.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 255.

    Division No. 206.]

    AYES

    [4.50 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Fletcher, Raymond Ilkeston)

    McGuire, Michael

    Albu, Austen

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Foley, Maurice

    Mackie, John

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Foot, Michael

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ford, Ben

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ashley, Jack

    Forrester, John

    Mcmillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Freeson, Reginald

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

    Barnes, Michael

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marks, Kenneth

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Marsden, F.

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Baxter, William

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Meacher, Michael

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Bishop, E S.

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mendelson, John

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Hamling, William

    Millan, Bruce

    Booth, Albert

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Hardy, Peter

    Milne, Edward

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

    Harper, Joseph

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

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

    Harrison. Walter (Wakefield)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hart, Rt Hn. Judith

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Buchan, Norman

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Murray, Ronald King

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Oakes, Gordon

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Horam, John

    Ogden, Eric

    Cant, R. B.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Carmichael, Neil

    Howell. Denis (Small Heath)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oram, Bert

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Owen, Dt. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Padley, Walter

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Hunter, Adam

    Palmer, Arthur

    Cohen, Stanley

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

    Pardoe, John

    Concannon, J. D.

    Janner, Greville

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Pentland, Norman

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Cronin, John

    John, Brynmor

    Prescott, John

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, William (Rugby)

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

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

    Probert, Arthur

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Jones Gwynoro Carmarthen)

    Rankin, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, T Alec (Rhondda, W)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Davies. Ifor (Gower)

    Kelley Richard

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Richard, Ivor

    Deakins, Eric

    Lambie, David

    Roberts Albert (Normanton)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Lamborn, Harry

    Roberts, Rt. Hn Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Dempsey, James

    Lamond, James

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Doig, Peter

    Latham Arthur

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

    Dormand, J. D.

    Latham George

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Roper, John

    Driberg, Tom

    Leonard, Dick

    Rose, Paul B.

    Dunn, James A.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Eadie, Alex

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Rowlands, Ted

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Edward, William (Merioneth)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Ellis, Tom

    Loughlin, Charles

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    English. Michael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

    Evans, Fred

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Ewing, Harry

    McBride, Neil

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Faulds, Andrew

    McCartney, Hugh

    Silverman, Julius

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McElhone, Frank

    Skinner, Dennis

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

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire,N.)

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Whitlock, William

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tinn, James

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Torney, Tom

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Steel, David

    Urwin, T. W.

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Strang, Gavin

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

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dry Shirley

    Wallace, George

    Woof, Robert

    Swain, Thomas

    Weitzman, David

    Taverne, Dick

    Wellbeloved, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Tom Pendry.

    Thomas. Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fell, Anthony

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Fidler, Michael

    Longden, Sir Gilbert

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Loveridge, John

    Astor, John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Luce, R. N.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fortescue, Tim

    MacArthur, Ian

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fowler, Norman

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Fox, Marcus

    McLaren, Martin

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Fry, Peter

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Batsford, Brian

    Galbraith, Hn. I. G.

    McMaster, Stanley

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Gardner, Edward

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Bell, Ronald

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Benyon, W.

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Madel, David

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marten, Neil

    Biffen, John

    Gorst, John

    Mather, Carol

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Maude, Angus

    Blaker, Peter

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Mawby, Ray

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Green, Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Body, Richard

    Grylls, Michael

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Gurden, Harold

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Bowden, Andrew

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Bray, Ronald

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Moate, Roger

    Brewis, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Molyneaux, James

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Money, Ernle

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Monro, Hector

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Havers, Michael

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hawkins, Paul

    More, Jasper

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

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Buck, Antony

    Hicks, Robert

    Morrison, Charles

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Mudd, David

    Burden, F. A.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Murton, Oscar

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

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Neave, Airey

    Chapman, Sydney

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Hordern, Peter

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Chichester-Clark, R

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Normanton, Tom

    Churchill, W. S.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Nott, John

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Clegg, Walter

    Hunt, John

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Cooke, Robert

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Coombs, Derek

    James, David

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Cordle, John

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

    Jessel, Toby

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Cormack, Patrick

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Costain, A. P.

    Jopling, Michael

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

    Crouch, David

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Raison, Timothy

    Dixon, Piers

    Kilfedder, James

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Drayson, G. B.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Redmond, Robert

    du Cann. Rt. Hn. Edward

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Knox, David

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

    Lamont, Norman

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Emery, Peter

    Lane, David

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Farr, John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Rost, Peter

    480

    481

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Sutcliffe, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Scott, Nicholas

    Tapsell, Peter

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Sharples, Richard

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

    Warren, Kenneth

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

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Simeons, Charles

    Tebbit, Norman

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Temple, John M.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Skeet. T. H. H.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Wilkinson, John

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

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Soref, Harold

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

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Speed, Keith

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Spence, John

    Tilney, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Sproat, Iain

    Trew, Peter

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Stainton, Keith

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Younger, Hn. George

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Mr. Victor Goodhew and

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Waddington, David

    Mr. Hamish Gray..

    Stokes, John

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 29, line 6, leave out from '£25'to end of line 8.
    As we know, we are working under a guillotine. The debate on the previous Amendment took 70 minutes, 62 of which were occupied by the Government, including 26 minutes by the Minister, and eight of which were occupied by the Opposition. As a member of the Business Committee, I can only regard that as a complete breach of the understanding we had about fair play in business time and in the allocation of time.
    This Amendment, with two others and many Amendments proposed by the Government of which we were not aware at the time we allocated business time by agreement, has to be covered rapidly. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I protest about the behaviour of the Government and the Minister in this matter so far. It is dishonourable and disgraceful. If I ever serve again on a Business Committee with the Minister I shall not accept his word about fair play. It was an absolute disgrace to take 26 minutes to reply to the Amendment Much of it could have been kept to some other time.
    I hope that we shall not have more evasions and filibustering of this nature. I make no reflection upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in relation to this Amendment, which is quite specific and definite. It relates to a matter which we discussed yesterday and on which we were promised figures. Despite the 26-minute speech, we have no more figures than we had yesterday. I was solemnly promised, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), that we would have the figures
    482
    for this category of house. I asked the Secretary of State:
    "How many houses are below the tolerable standard among the 100,000 houses which are still in control?"—
    that is to say, in the Clause with which we are dealing. The Secretary of State said:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1972; Vol 838, c. 261.]
    All of us who were present yesterday know that we did not get the figures, either at the end of the debate or at the end of yesterday's proceedings.
    This Amendment could not be more specific. It talks about 30,000 houses at £25 or below on the valuation roll. No one in Scotland can think of houses of this kind and not recognise that they are among the most inferior dwellings we have. They are at £25 valuation not in English terms of 1963 but in Scottish terms of 1971. Many of them have no inside toilet. Many families in them share a common toilet. Many of them are without bath or hot water supply. Indeed, many of the houses are in a disgraceful state of disrepair. I will not go into the reasons for that, but I am simply saying that this category of house which the Secretary of State is putting into rent regulation—for example, at higher rents, because their rents could hardly be lower—are all low grade houses.
    We have heard speeches from the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)—I did not begrudge their speeches—telling us of the low grade of these houses. It is obvious why they are so low grade. They are poor properties.

    483
    They do not command a proper rent. In fact, many of them should be taken out of housing accommodation almost at once. I am certain that under the Public Health Acts a large number could be so represented in the sheriffs' courts and taken out of accommodation at once as being unfit within the law for human habitation.
    Yet the Government insist that these houses be put back into rent regulation and allowed higher rents. It is intolerable. The rents of houses which have come out of control have been raised enormously. In a curious perversion of argument yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said that as others living in houses of this character, with outside toilets and no modern facilities had had their rents raised higher than was reasonable, as he claimed, under past Acts, it would be wrong for us not to allow these other houses to take the same place. He was arguing a case of equality of misery. He argues that since some houses were unlucky enough to have been decontrolled by the 1957 Act and brought back into regulation by the 1965 Act, everyone must suffer the same. That is the logic of his argument. He said that this was what the Francis Committee had told him. He must know that when a committee recommends something to a Minister it does not mean that he has to do what it says. As Minister, he should weigh the pros and cons, taking into account the work of the committee, and decide whether it was right or wrong.
    The right hon. Gentleman hides behind the Francis Committee on every issue. He said that the Francis Committee recommended that all houses must come out of control into regulation. He says that even this miserable section of houses must conform to that diktat. I suggest that there is no basis in social justice for doing so. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that it would be a good thing if these houses were improved. He said that by the time this provision came into being in 1975 they would be so improved. That is nonsense. Anyone who is acquainted with these houses knows the physical problems of converting them into reasonable accommodation. It means in many cases changing a 12-apartmenit tenement into an eight-apartment tenement, con-
    484
    verting the middle flat into a bathroom and so on. Physically, it is extremely difficult and expensive so to do.
    Some of these houses are not worth saving or converting. They might as well be torn down. The time to take these houses into rent regulation is when they have been improved. At that stage one can discuss a reasonable rent. But, of course, many will not be improved. Many will be torn down, and it follows that they should not have higher rents imposed in the interval between now and when they are torn down.
    The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of the slum clearance subsidy and what he is doing about clearing the slums of Scotland. These houses are the slums of Scotland, although of course there may be others in other categories. But these are slums. It is monstrous that in a Bill of this nature, which seeks to deal with slums, we should be regarding these houses as being fit for the rent regulation system.
    I am not seduced by the argument that under the device of the Bill rents are bound to go lower. In the first place, these houses are at very low rent now. I can hardly believe that under the present appreciations carried out by rent officers and rent assessment committees their rents will not rise. Even if the figures of analysis given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday were right, and one-third dropped in rent, one-third remained the same and one-third rose in rent, it would still be intolerable to increase rents on the 10,000. It would be outrageous to ask anyone in these houses to pay higher rents.
    I cannot understand any hon. Member opposite being party to this operation. The Bill unamended must, in remorselessly putting these houses into rent regulation, raise their rents. I earnestly put it to the Under-Secretary of State that he should either accept the Amendment or at least say that he will think about this matter further and seek to amend the provision in another place when he has had time to reflect.
    There is also the question of the Government's figures. This Bill has had the longest ever Committee stage of any major piece of legislation in a Scottish Standing Committee. Despite that and

    485
    the guillotine, the Bill has been distinguished by a lamentable lack of information from Ministers on the social fabric of Scotland. The Amendment crystallises the nub of the problem, which is our curse of bad housing. I plead with the Government to realise that mine is not an outrageous request. It is sensible, and in all logic should be granted. I earnestly hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it.
    Mr. Younger: I must say how strongly I disagree with the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in his taking unto himself the right to declare the time we will take on individual debates in this House. After the long hours we spent listening to the repetitive arguments of the Opposition on Amendment after Amendment after Amendment in the longest Committee stage ever on a Scottish Bill, it is a bit hard to hear him, on one of his own Amendments, objecting to our discussing the very important issues which were raised on the last Amendment. No one affected by the Bill in Scotland will resent the time we are spending on it. It is extremely unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should presume to declare which debates are to take time and which are not. We rightly took time on the last debate, which was on a very important subject deserving proper discussion.
    The hon. Gentleman's usual accuracy has vanished. He criticised my right hon. Friend for not having given him an answer to his question yesterday. The hon. Gentleman said yesterday:
    "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?"
    My right hon. Friend replied:
    "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."
    The hon. Gentleman has complained that he did not get that information. He has not looked very far in HANSARD. If he had done so, he would have seen on the very next page that my right hon. Friend later said:
    "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
    486
    of them are under controlled tenancies. It could be a large number."
    It is a bit hard, therefore, to hear the hon. Gentleman complaining that my right hon. Friend did not answer. My right hon. Friend did answer.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the hon. Gentleman read further on? I then asked the right hon. Gentleman:
    "Never mind the 215,000 anywhere else. Will he concentrate on the 100,000 that we are discussing in this debate?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 261 and 262.]
    At the moment, we are discussing 30,000 houses below £25 valuation. Can we have an answer to that one?
    Mr. Younger: The answer has been given.
    Dr. Mabon: It has not.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman may not like the answer but it has been given. It is that we do not know precisely what proportion of the 100,000—or, for that matter, of the 30,000—are below the tolerable standard. I said earlier that it could be a considerable number. But we do not have the information, nor did the hon. Gentleman when he was Minister because it is information which has not been and is not available.
    I want to be as brief as I can. This Amendment would aim to prevent the conversion of controlled tenancies with a rateable value of less than £25. Conversion of these houses would not automatically mean an increase in rents. The hon. Gentleman said that it is no use pretending that these rents can go anywhere but upwards because they could hardly be lower. I am not suggesting that anything but a small number of them will go downwards, but they can be lower. They have been lower in quite a number of cases. I will not weary the House because we have little time, but I will quote three cases.
    5.15 p.m.
    The first is a house in Edinburgh, with two small rooms and outside water closet. It is a very poor house in a deteriorating area. The previous registered rent of £78 was reduced to £33·80. There is another case in Edinburgh where the registered rent was reduced from £65 to £32. In a case in Aberdeen the registered rent of £37 was reduced to £18. I must emphasise that I am not saying that the

    487
    generality of the houses will be reduced on decontrol. That would be wrong. But I do say that the fixing of the registered rent by the rent officer does reflect the value of the property, and if the property is very poor the rent will be very low. If the property is sufficiently poor, the rent can be, and in some cases is, reduced.
    Dr. Mabon: But the hon. Gentleman cannot quote those examples. Those houses were decontrolled under the 1957 Act and registered under the fair rent provisions. I cannot speak for that in the first case, but certainly in the first two. This Amendment is about houses which have never been decontrolled. These houses were never decontrolled under the Rent Acts and were unaffected by the 1957 Act. Therefore, their rents are considerably lower than the figure he has given.
    Mr. Younger: That is fair enough, but the argument is whether it is better to leave these houses as they are in every respect—that is, in their present state of repair—or whether it is better to get a move on and do something to improve them. I accept that this is a legitimate argument between us. It has been our view over many years that until someone has the guts to grasp the nettle and take these houses out of control—we have machinery for this in the fair rents system, which reflects the condition of the property—then these houses and those living in them will remain in their present condition. That is not acceptable to me. I do not think that it should be acceptable to the House, and that is why I hope we shall reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I want to raise one or two points of issue with the Under-Secretary of State because he is living in a dream world of housing. He forgets that once the Bill goes through the price of housing will not be any figure of fair value or objective assessment of what the house is worth, but what the market will bear.
    Mr. Younger indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hughes: The Francis Committee made it clear that once council house rents were forced up there would be an increase in rents of general property, and that those who had had their rents
    488
    assessed three years ago would, when they came into comparison with houses more recently valued, pay still more in a leapfrogging situation. It is nonsense to pretend that that will not happen. Excessively high rents have been charged for houses decontrolled under the 1957 Act.
    What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have that the landlords of decontrolled houses who have been getting rents of £70 a year have spent one penny on repairs and improvements? The answer is that these landlords have spent nothing even when they have had money coming in. If they had spent money on keeping their property in good repair from the day they were built, we should not be having the trouble we have today. To suggest that the only way to deal with this situation is to allow rents to be increased—that this the only way to get repairs and improvements done—is nonsensical.
    The only way we shall get repairs done to these properties is for them to be taken into ownership by local authorities, which will carry out the repairs. Only then shall we begin to get an improvement in housing standards. Through the hours we spent in Committee on this and other points we derived no satisfaction from the Under-Secretary. He was not prepared to budge. He was prepared to make Amendments to the existing law to protect his friends, and one of the things the Government are doing for which they should be ashamed is allowing people to receive grants of up to 75 per cent. from local authorities to improve properties. A man in Aberdeen boasts that he will be a millionaire as a result of the council giving him money to renovate properties which he can then sell without having to pay a halfpenny back.
    If the Under-Secretary would be prepared to show a little compassion to the people who live in tenement property—we know he cannot understand the problems because he has never had to live in these squalid conditions—and if he would try to apply his mind to what is involved he might give way on this Amendment, if on no other. If he cannot show compassion for, and give protection to, some of these tenants, God help the rest of Scotland!
    Mr. William Ross: I need not comment on the last series of

    489
    Amendments. What happened speaks for itself. I am sure that the House will appreciate that the sudden spate of oratory was related to the absence of certain hon. Members on the Government side—probably at Epsom. They were trying to keep things going until their hon. Friends returned. If Lester Piggott had been as slow as the hon. Gentleman a great many people would be very unhappy today.
    We are dealing with a serious problem that has been before the House for a long time. My heart was bleeding as I listened to the unusual speeches by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). I should remind them that there were 13 uninterrupted years of Tory rule in which they could have done something and in which they produced two Acts. One was the 1954 Act, which authorised owners to increase rents by 40 per cent. but only on condition that precedent to the increase the owners spent no less than 60 per cent, of their controlled house rental on the house. We have heard how low that rental was.
    The result was that the 1954 Act was a complete failure. Out of the 700,000 controlled houses in Scotland, the rents of only 3 per cent. of the houses were increased, so the landlords could not show that they were even spending that amount on repairs. The Tory Government tried again with the 1957 Act. This time the private landlords were given a 25 per cent. increase for doing nothing to improve the kind of property to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) was referring.
    We must take note that in 1954 there were 700,000 privately-tenanted houses. By 1966 there were only 303,000. In the following three years the figure fell to 229,000. Today it is probably down to 180,000. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. I believe that the relevant figure is probably about 80,000. I would like an explanation. We all sympathise with the Secretary of State having to be brought in at the last moment. He demonstrated that he was out of his depth—he did not even leave the beach. If we are told that there are 215,000 houses below the tolerable standard can
    490
    we be told where they are and what kind of houses they are? If they are local authority houses—this was the implication in the latest reply—their rents will increase even though they do not meet the tolerable standard. If the rents of these houses do not go up, someone else's rent will because the authorities must find £24 per house and £26 per house in the succeeding year.
    Are these houses privately owned? If they are, these are the slum properties that the landlords of Scotland have been selling to people because no other houses were available. The complaint was made that we built too many authority houses. The Scottish Office knows a great deal about the problem of the £25 rateable value house and below. There are hundreds of files in Glasgow on this kind of house as a result of the high storm, when the Government had to spend £6 million making these rotten warrens wind and water-tight. It would be interesting to know how much of that money was paid back and how many of these houses that are fit for habitation only because of Government money will have their rents increased.
    The Under-Secretary said that we must not take it for granted that rents will be increased. But every speech from the Government side of the House took it for granted that these rents would go up, and the people living in these houses will be wise to take the same attitude. This is the intention. The Under-Secretary's argument is that we must do something about these houses. He would not live in them. The trouble is that we on this side of the House know too much about them. We were all brought up in them. I do not know what the Under-Secretary is smiling at, because this happens to be true. We know the closed stair, the single end room and kitchen—if one was lucky! We know that even 20, 30 or 40 years ago the tenants, not the landlords, were maintaining these properties, but the tenants will not get the benefits of anything they have spent on these properties. The landlord will gain. He has done nothing, and there is no guarantee that he will do anything.
    The Under-Secretary spoke about what we did and did not do. It is interesting to note that under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1969, before regulated tenancy was granted a dwelling had to be:

    491
    "certified by the local authority, on the application of the landlord, to satisfy the following conditions, that is to say, that it 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."
    This is what the hon. Gentleman refused to put into the Bill, and it is because of that that we now say as a last step "Take these houses out because they are the slums of Scotland." These are the houses in which the people of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee have had to live for generations. Nothing has been done about them, and all the hon. Gentleman now proposes to do is to allow rents to be raised without any guarantees that they will ever reach a tolerable standard of accommodation. He cannot give us any guarantees about the behaviour of the rent officer or, more important, the rent assessment commit-
    tee. We have the Francis Committee's Report. Why did the Government not act on that? The rents were reduced for 12½ per cent. of the houses, about 5½ per cent. remained the same and over 82½ per cent. of the rents were increased That was the Scottish situation.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: And the same in England.
    Mr. Ross: There is a danger now with these houses if they are not sold, and I reckon that many of the 215,000 houses below tolerable standard are owner-occupied, the kind of house that caused more trouble during the storm damage, because of multiple ownership, than any other kind. This Bill will not help Scottish housing. I hope that we shall vote against this Amendment.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 255.

    Division No. 207.]

    AYES

    [5.30 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Albu, Austen

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Deakins, Eric

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ashley, Jack

    Dempsey, James

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ashton, Joe

    Doig, Peter

    Hunter, Adam

    Atkinson, Norman

    Dormand, J. D.

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)

    Barnes, Michael

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Janner, Greville

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Driberg, Tom

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Dunn, James A.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Baxter, William

    Eadie, Alex

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    John, Brynmor

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ellis, Tom

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    English, Michael

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Evans, Fred

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

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Ewing, Harry

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Booth, Albert

    Faulds, Andrew

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Kaufman, Gerald

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

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Kelley, Richard

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

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Foley, Maurice

    Lambie, David

    Buchan, Norman

    Foot, Michael

    Lamborn, Harry

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

    Ford, Ben

    Lamond, James

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Forrester, John

    Latham, Arthur

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Lawson, George

    Campbell, I.(Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Cant, R. B.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Carmichael, Neil

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lipton, Marcus

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hamling, William

    McCartney, Hugh

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    McElhone, Frank

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hardy, Peter

    McGuire, Michael

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mackie, John

    Cronin, John

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Hattersley, Roy

    Maclennan, Robert

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Heffer, Eric S.

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Horam, John

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

    Dalyell, Tam

    Marks, Kenneth

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Strang, Gavin

    Marsden, F.

    Prescott, John

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Swain, Thomas

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Probert, Arthur

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

    Meacher, Michael

    Rankin, John

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

    Mendelson, John

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Tinn, James

    Millan, Bruce

    Richard, Ivor

    Torney, Tom

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Urwin, T. W

    Milne, Edward

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Varley, Eric G.

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

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, A. I Saints)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Roper, John

    Wallace, George

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Weitzman, David

    Murray, Ronald King

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Oakes, Gordon

    Rowlands, Edward

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Sandelson, Neville

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    O'Malley, Brian

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Whitlock, William

    Oram, Bert

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

    Willey Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Orbach, Maurice

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Sillars, James

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Padley, Walter

    Silverman Julius

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Paget, R. T.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Smith, John Lanarkshire, N.)

    Woof, Robert

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Spearing, Nigel

    Pardoe, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Steel, David

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Mr. Tom Pendry.

    Pentland, Norman

    Stonehouse. Rt. Hn. John

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Coombs, Derek

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Cordle, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Astor, John

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Cormack, Patrick

    Havers, Michael

    Awdry, Daniel

    Costain, A. P.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Crouch, David

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hicks, Robert

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Batsford, Brian

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hiley, Joseph

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Bell, Ronald

    Dixon, Piers

    Holland, Philip

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Benyon, W.

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hordern, Peter

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hornby, Richard

    Biffen, John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Biggs-Davison, John

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

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Blaker, Peter

    Emery, Peter

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Body, Richard

    Fair, John

    Hunt, John

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Fell, Anthony

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fidler, Michael

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    James, David

    Bray, Ronald

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Brewis, John

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Fowler, Norman

    Jessel, Toby

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Fox, Marcus

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fry, Peter

    Jopling, Michael

    Bruco-Gardyne, J.

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Gardner, Edward

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

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

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Kilfedder, James

    Buck, Antony

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Burden, F. A.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Campbell, Rt. Hn.(Moray & Nairn)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Carlisle, Mark

    Gorst, John

    Knox, David

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Gower, Raymond

    Lamont, Norman

    Chapman, Sydney

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)

    Lane, David

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Green, Alan

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Churchill, W. S.

    Grylls, Michael

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Gurden, Harold

    Longden, Sir Gilbert

    Clegg, Walter

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Loveridge, John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Luce. R. N.

    Cooke, Robert

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    494

    495

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Percival, Ian

    Stokes, John

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    McLaren, Martin

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Sutcliffe, John

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Tapsell, Peter

    McMaster, Stanley

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

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

    Tebbit, Norman

    Madel, David

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Temple, John M.

    Marten, Neil

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Mather, Carol

    Quennell, Miss J. M

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Maude, Angus

    Raison, Timothy

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

    Mawby, Ray

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Redmond, Robert

    Tilney, John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Trew, Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Tugendhat, Christopher

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

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Moate, Roger

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Molyneaux, James

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Waddington, David

    Money, Ernle

    Rost, Peter

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Monro, Hector

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Ward Dame Irene

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Scott, Nicholas

    Warren, Kenneth

    More, Jasper

    Sharples, Richard

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Morrison, Charles

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mudd, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Wilkinson, John

    Murton, Oscar

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Neave, Airey

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

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Soref, Harold

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Worsley, Marcus

    Normanton, Tom

    Spence, John

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Nott, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Younger, Hn. George

    Onslow, Cranley

    Stainton, Keith

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Mr. Tim Fortescue and

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Mr. Hamish Gray.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 48
    PROCEDURE FOR NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FOR RENT INCREASE TO TENANTS OF CONTROLLED DWELLING-HOUSES.
    Amendment made: No. 107, in page 38, line 26, leave out Clause 48.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Schedule 7
  MODIFICATIONS OF PART VI OF THE RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1971
  Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment 108, in page 91, line 24, leave out paragraph 9.
  Mr. Younger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that it would be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 109, in page 93, line 3, leave out paragraphs 10 to 12?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Yes. Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 can conveniently be taken together.
  Mr. McElhone: On the face of it these are rather complicated matters, and I do not have a lot of time to explain them before the guillotine falls because of the filibustering arguments used earlier by the Government. This Amendment refers to the restriction of rent increases where houses have been brought into regulation. Those who follow housing matters more closely than hon. Members opposite will be aware that under the1969 and 1971 Acts increases in private property rents were phased in five payments over four years. Under this Bill the increases will be phased over two years with three payments, and that will impose a great deal of hardship on the tenants of houses like those mentioned yesterday in connection with the Western Heritable Investment Company.
  The extent of the reductions depend upon the year in which the house came under the regulating procedure. If the second period of delay begins on or after January, 1973, if the rent was registered during 1972, then the period of delay is reduced to two years and the amount of increase which can be recovered in the second year is three-fifths and not two-fifths. If the rent was registered

  497
  during 1970 or 1971, the period of delay is reduced to three years so that the amount of the increase which may be recovered in the third year is four-fifths and not three-fifths. I regret that I am not able to go more fully into the details.
  If we look at a house which came under regulation before this Measure and presume that it rises from £50 to £250 a year over four years—the housing experts tell us that this is quite possible—the increase could be made over a five-payment phase. That would be £40 per year in addition to the original £50 rent because the period has been truncated. Therefore, a person would find himself paying £53·65 over an average period of three years; that is, £13·65 above the increase arranged because of the regulation.
  Taking similar figures, where a £50 house goes up to £250 under the present legislation the tenant will pay on average only an extra £40 at a time in five payments over four years. The proposal in the Bill to bring down the period from four years to two years means that the tenant will be forced to pay an extra £66·65 a year, resulting in his having to pay more than 50 per cent. on the already heavy increase that he must pay.
  This is welshingon agreements and working contracts honourably made. It is a piece of political chicanery. It will result in a great deal of hardship. It will mean large increases in rents which are already a burden to many families, bearing in mind that on top of the increases that the Bill will bring about there have been increases in food prices, increased charges for school meals, dental and prescription charges, and the present unemployment situation. A rent increase of the kind proposed may be the straw which breaks the camel's back.
  I hope that even 10 minutes before the guillotine falls, the Government will have second thoughts and that some other formula will percolate through from the officials advising the Under-Secretary. Basically we ask for the status quo. Because of our understanding of the problem under the 1969 Act as amended by the 1971 Act, we realise that if these houses are to be subject to rent increases they should be brought into force over a sensible period. We are against increases in the main. But at least a humane
  498
  approach has been taken hitherto by imposing five increases over four years. However, the Under-Secretary has not judged the situation at all well. The economic situation in Scotland today does not allow for savage increases of the kind that will result from the Bill.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary will probably say that the possibility of rent allowances did not arise under the previous legislation. We accept that. He will also tell us that there will be a saving to ratepayers. We hear a great deal about the poor ratepayers of Glasgow. However, the other advice that we get from Glasgow is that, as a result of rebates and allowances, Glasgow ratepayers will be paying about £600,000 within two years of this Bill coming into force. The ratepayers are not saving a great deal.
  We are asking for the status quo under Schedule 13 of the 1971 Act. If the Under-Secretary studies that Schedule he will see that it was enacted under the previous Government with some consideration of the strain and hardship that any increase can impose on a family—
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the point which we have discussed several times and which has been skated over by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite; namely, the reference in paragraph 9(b) to the substitution of 50p for 37½pand the cavalier way in which this one-third increase appears to be dismissed as not being terribly important and as somehow being almost the same as under our legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget to develop this point, because we resent it greatly, as I am sure he does.
  Mr. McElhone: It is a very good point, and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). It was referred to yesterday. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to forget that towards the end of the period in office of the last Government there was a Rent (Control of Increases) Bill. It was introduced because the London boroughs were imposing harsh rent increases on council tenants. It is nonsense to suggest that the present situation could have existed under the last Government. I seem to remember

  499
  making my maiden speech on that Bill and pointing out the situation in Glasgow, which was then suffering under a Tory administration.
  I accept what my hon. Friend says. We do not expect a change of attitude on the part of the Minister. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me a copy of a speech with which he entertained the poor people of Perth. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is not here to hear me refer to it. In the course of his speech the Under-Secretary said:
  "Scottish Conservatives while in opposition were able to listen to the growing body of non-political opinion…".
  I presume that the Clauses in the Bill were framed because of the expert advice received by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite from those bodies of non-political opinion. I take them to include the Monday Club, the Primrose League, Aims of Industry, and perhaps that rather unique body the Cathcart Tories, who, I understand on good authority, repudiate all Scottish Conservative conferences and never attend them.
  We have to bear in mind that, apart from the minute concession about rent officers calling on tenants, that Under-Secretary has made not one financial concession to the Opposition after 35 sittings in Committee. He has opportunity to do so now. We do not ask for a reduction. We are not trying to prevent the Government saving money for the ratepayers. There is no doubt that the Government are saving money with this Bill. From this legislation they expect to save between £100 million and £200 million, and it is estimated that they will save £20 million in Scotland. I am not trying to break into that figure. All that we seek is an opportunity, during a period of economic crisis which affects Scotland more seriously than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, for people who have to pay savage increases from £50 to £250 to be able to phase them in five payments over four years, rather than cutting the period by half and allowing them just two years in which to meet what are extortionate increases.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. The hon. Member for
  500
  Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) referred to the change from 37½pto 50p. However, if he considers the change in the cost of living since then, in real terms the two sums are almost the same. About 48p would be the equivalent of 37½pat the time his Government brought in that amount. It must not be forgotten, either, that the increase in the cost of living came about mostly during the term of office of the last Government, entirely due to their policies.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) says that he would prefer a phasing of five stages over four years. However, there is one fundamental difference, between our proposal and the four-year, five-stage phasing which is what the hon. Gentleman's party produced in that their system gave no rent allowances. A three-phase system with rent allowances cannot be said to produce hardship.
  Let us consider a rent of 63p per week now being increased to £6, which is an extreme case. Under the Bill, in the first year of phasing the rent would go up to £2·42, an increase of £1·79, and in the second year there would be a further increase of £1·79, and a full fair rent of £6 would only become payable at the end of the second year.
  Taking an example of a pensioner couple with an income of £16 a week, which is not exceptional in the kind of situation hon. Gentlemen have been outlining, the total income of this couple would exceed the needs allowance for a couple by £1·25. The rent payable will therefore be the sum of the minimum rent (£1, or 40 per cent., of the full rent) and 17 per cent. of £1·25; that is to say, 21 pence. That is the difference between the old system and the new system.
  I cannot accept these Amendments because the longer period of phasing hon. Gentlemen would like to have would delay the benefits which will come from bringing these houses into the regulation system. I do not believe that the longer phasing is necessary now that we have the rent allowance system to protect those tenants—
  It being Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing

  501
  Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [11th April and yesterday], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 260.

  Division No. 208.]

  AYES

  [6.00 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Albu, Austen

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Millan, Bruce

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Barnes, Michael

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Gordon

  Baxter, William

  Harper, Joseph

  Ogden, Eric

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oram, Bert

  Bishop, E. S.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oswald, Thomas

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Horam, John

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Booth, Albert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Padley, Walter

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Paget, R. T.

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pardoe, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Janner, Greville

  Pentland, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Prescott, John

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  John, Brynmor

  Probert, Arthur

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cronin, John

  Kinnock, Neil

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roper, John

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

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Latham, Arthur

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lawson, George

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Leonard, Dick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dempsey, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Doig, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sillars, James

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Driberg, Tom

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Spearing, Nigel

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McElhone, Frank

  Steel, David

  Ellis, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Evans, Fred

  Mackie, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Ewing, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Faulds, Anthony

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Fletcher, Raymond Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Foley, Maurice

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  Foot. Michael

  Marsden, F.

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Ford, Ben

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Tinn, James

  Forester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Torney, Tom

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Urwin, T. W.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Varley, Eric G.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mendelson, John

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

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Whitlock, William

  Woof, Robert

  Wallace, George

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Weitzman, David

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mr. James A. Dunn.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fortescue, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fowler, Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Fox, Marcus

  Maddan, Martin

  Astor, John

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marten, Neil

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gardner, Edward

  Mather, Carol

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Maylebone)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maude, Angus

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Batsford, Brian

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bell, Ronald

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gower, Raymond

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Benyon, W.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

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

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Biffen, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

  Blaker, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Money, Ernle

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Body, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Monro, Hector

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  More, Jasper

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Charles

  Bray, Ronald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Havers, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neave, Airey

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Normanton, Tom

  Buck, Antony

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nott, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Burden, F. A.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornsby-Smitn, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hunt, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clegg, Walter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Cockeram, Eric

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cooke, Robert

  James, David

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

  Coombs, Derek

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cordle, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Raison, Timothy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Crouch, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Redmond, Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kilfedder. James

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Dixon, Piers

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Rost, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lane, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sharples, Richard

  Emery, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, R. N.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fidler, Michael

  MacArthur, Ian

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Soref, Harold

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Speed, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maclean Sir Fitzroy

  Spence, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  504

  505

  Sproat, Iain

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stainton, Keith

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

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tilney, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Trew, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Stokes, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Sutcliffe, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tebbit, Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Hamish Gray and

  Temple, John M.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  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 Six o'clock.

  Clause 53
  RESIDUAL SUBSIDIES—SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendments made:
  No. 110, in page 41, line 45, after 'expenditure', insert '(including loan charges)'.
  No. 110, in page 42, line 2, leave out 'statutory' and insert 'housing'.
  No. 112, in line 14, after second 'or', insert:
  'trustees for another housing association, or are leased to or become vested in'.
  No. 113, in line 20, at end insert:
  (4) For the purposes of this section houses are leased if and only if they are leased for a term exceeding seven years, or for a term not exceeding seven years granted by a lease which confers on the lessee an option for renewal of a term which, together with the original term, exceeds seven years.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 54
  THE NEW BUILDING SUBSIDY
  Amendments made:
  No. 114, in page 42, line 26, leave out 'if they complete' and insert:
  'as provided by the following provisions of this section and section 55 below, in respect of'.
  No. 115, in line 27, leave out 'and' and insert 'if they'.
  No. 116, in page 43, line 9, leave out
  'as estimated in accordance with subsections (7) to (10) below'.
  No. 117, in line 12, leave out 'that every dwelling-house' and insert:
  ', subject to subsection (7A) below, that every house'.
  No. 118, in line 41, at end insert:
  (7A) The Secretary of State may direct under subsection (7) above that paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above shall have effect with the substitution for the assumption specified in that paragraph of such other assumption as may be specified in the direction.
  No. 119, in page 44, line 6, leave out 'subsection (7)' and insert 'subsections (7) and (7A)'.
  No. 120, in line 27, after 'expenditure', insert '(including loan charges)'.
  No. 121, in line 28, leave out 'statutory' and insert 'housing'.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 55

    NEW BUILDING SUBSIDY—SUPPLEMENTARY
    Amendments made:
    No. 122, in page 45, line 3, leave out from 'or' to 'or' in line 4 and insert 'leased'.
    No. 123, in line 6, at end insert:
    'or trustees for the association'.
    No. 124, in line 8, after 'association', insert:
    'or trustees for a housing association'.
    No. 125, in line 9, after 'or', insert:
    'are leased to or become vested'.
    No. 126, in line 14, at end insert—
    (4) For the purposes of this section houses are leased if and only if they are leased for a term exceeding seven years, or for a term not exceeding seven years granted by a lease which confers on the lessee an option for renewal for a term which, together with the original term, exceeds seven years.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 56
  THE IMPROVEMENT SUBSIDY
  Amendments made: No. 127, in page 45, line 19, leave out 'if they complete' and insert:
  'as provided by the following provisions of this section in respect of'.
  No. 128, in line 20, leave out 'and' and insert 'if they'.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 58
  SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 129, in page 47, line 36, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Parts IV and'.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 59
  TENANCIES TO WHICH SECTIONS 59 TO 65 APPLY
  Amendment made: No. 130, in page 48, line 22, after second 'and', insert 'the said'.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 60
  RENTS TO BE REGISTRABLE UNDER PART IV OF THE ACT OF 1971
  Amendments made: No. 131, in page 48, line 28, after '65', insert 'of this Act'.
  No. 132, in line 29, leave out from '39' to first 'of' in line 30 and insert:
  'to 42, section 43 (except subsection (3) thereof) and section 46'.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 61
  THE RENT LIMIT
  Amendment made: No. 133, in page 50, line 7, at end insert—
  Provided that an increase of rent made solely to reflect an increase in the amount of rates borne by the landlord shall be disregarded for the purposes of section 62(3) or (4) of this Act.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 62
  PHASING OF PROGRESSION TO REGISTERED RENT
  Amendment made: No. 134, in page 51, line 17, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
  508
  (6) The registration of a lower or higher rent during the progression from the rent limit in force before the prior registration shall not alter the stages by which the rent limit is to progress, and if a higher rent is registered in the 52 weeks beginning with the first rental period for which the rent is increased up to the rent registered on the prior registration, the first stage in the progression from that rent up to the later registered rent shall not begin until the end of that period of 52 weeks.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 63
  PREVIOUS RENT LIMIT EXCEEDING REGISTERED RENT: SPECIAL RENT LIMIT
  Amendments made: No. 135, in page 51, line 32, at endinsert—
  (2A) Notwithstanding section 66(2) of this Act, the reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the date of registration shall be construed, in a case where a rent determined by a rent assessment committee is registered in substitution for a rent determined by the rent officer, as a reference to the date on which the rent determined by the rent assessment committee was registered.
  No. 136, in page 52, line 29, at end add—

  (9) This section applies whether the registration mentioned in subsection (1) above is the first or any subsequent registration and, in the case of a subsequent registration, whether or not the rent limit immediately before the date of registration was that fixed by a direction under this section.

  (10) A confirmation of arent by the rent officer shall be treated for the purposes of this section as a registration of a rent which supersedes the registration, whether or not it is a provisional registration, prior to the confirmation.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 64
  SPECIAL RENT LIMIT: PROCEDURE ON APPLICATION
  Amendment made: No. 137, in page 53, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert:
  "(including loan charges) which in his opinion it is reasonable for the applicant to incur in the exercise of housing functions".—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 67
  INTERPRETATION OF PART VI
  Amendments made: No. 138, in page 54, line 8, leave out from 'requires' to end of line 10 and insert:
  ' "housing functions" means constructing, improving or managing or facilitating or encouraging the construction or improvement of

  509
  houses by conversion and the acquisition of houses, and includes functions which are supplementary or incidental to any of those functions'.
  No. 139, in line 10, at end insert—
  'loan charges' includes any loan charges made by a housing association (including charges for debt management) whether in respect of borrowing from any capital fund kept by the housing association, or in respect of borrowing between accounts kept by the housing association for different functions, or otherwise.—[Mr. Younger.]

  Clause 71
  DEFAULT BY LOCAL AUTHORITY
  Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 141, in page 56, line 13, leave out from 'order' to end of line 16.
  If it meets with your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that we might take at the same time Amendment No. 142, in page 56, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.
  Mr. Strang: These Amendments relate to the Draconian default powers which the Secretary of State proposes to take to impose this piece of legislation on the people of Scotland, to impose what must be one of the main socially vindictive and class biased pieces of legislation which has ever gone through the House, and to mount a massive assault on the powers of locally elected town and county councils throughout Scotland.
  The first Amendment refers to the additional unspecified functions which the Secretary of State wishes to take in order that he can operate them in cases of default. The second Amendment seeks to delete paragraph (b) under which, among other things, the Secretary of State gives himself power to ignore the provisions of the Act when he intervenes with a default order.
  I am conscious that we debated this issue in Committee. I have taken the trouble to read that debate. However, it seems that the Under-Secretary of State said very little in his speech. He made no serious attempt to answer many of the important questions put to him by my hon. Friends in Committee. The hon. Gentleman made the point that if
  510
  there were a default he certainly would not regard it as the fault of the officials; he would hold only the councillors responsible. That is what we would expect. He also pointed out that in these situations he would be able to take power to issue instructions to local authority officials as though the councillors did not exist, but that all these powers could not be operated until after a fairly lengthy procedure, including a public inquiry.
  The Under-Secretary made no attempt to explain precisely what he would do in a situation where a local authority said to the Government: "If you intend to impose these measures on our electors, if you intend to take away all these powers from us, if you intend that this rebate scheme should be applied to every person in this area, then you can jolly well do it yourselves".
  We are dealing with a different situation from that which existed before. The default powers have existed for many years, but we knew that there was little likelihood of them being used. However, because of the actions of this Government we have reached a situation in which it is almost certain that if and when the Bill becomes an Act the Secretary of State will in due course be required to intervene.
  The controlling group on Glasgow Town Council has indicated it is not likely to implement this legislation. The Labour group on Edinburgh Town Council on Monday evening, although not in control, also indicated that it was of a mind not to implement this socially vindictive Measure. We know—there is no use pretending otherwise—that a host of local authorities throughout Scotland are of a similar mind.
  Why have we reached such an unprecedented state of affairs where local authority after local authority is totally opposed to the Government on this issue and is talking in terms of refusing to implement the provisions of the Bill? First, because this is an extremely bad piece of legislation. It is aimed at redistributing the purchasing power of wage earners to the owners of property and capital. Basically, that is what the Bill is about, and that is why it is being met with such massive opposition from the representatives of ordinary people in Scotland.

  511
  More important in the context of the debate, we have this tremendous opposition because the Secretary of State is attempting to inflict the most massive assault ever on the powers of our elected local authorities. I know of no previous legislation this century which attacks and undermines to this extent the existing powers of democratically elected local authorities.
  It has been said repeatedly in our debates that the Government seek to fix the rents of all local authority houses, to fix the size of rent increases and, most incredibly, to lay down in the most minute detail the rebate scheme to be applied to every person in local authority areas.
  Clause 18 is humorously entitled:
  "Extent to which authorities may depart from model schemes".
  Everyone who has read the Bill knows that there is virtually no scope for local authorities to depart in any significant way, apart from a few isolated cases, from the absolute holus-bolus operation of the rebate scheme.
  This is not a rent rebate scheme. This in fact is a differential rent scheme, because the vast majority of tenants will pay a rent related to their income. A rebate scheme is something applied to a small proportion of tenants, to tenants on low incomes.
  The Government are making local authority officials the agents of the central Government. Local authority officials who are required to administer the rebate scheme will have less scope to depart from it than have the officials in the local branches of the Department of Health and Social Security. All hon. Members have had experience with the local office of that Department. They know that, although the whole thing is laid down centrally, there is a fair amount of discretion in local offices. Honourable Members who are on good terms with the managers of these local offices know this.
  Under the Bill when enacted these officials will have virtually no power to depart from the rigorous, socially vindictive rebate scheme. If it were desired to operate a rebate scheme of this nature, it would have been logical to take it away from the local authority altogether and to have it operated by the Depart-
  512
  ment of Health and Social Security. All the other issues of housing finance could have been left with the local authority.
  Mr. James Dempsey: It is done now.
  Mr. Strang: It is done now to some extent in the case of tenants who are on supplementary benefit.
  The Government seek to create a situation in which officials who are supposed to be responsible to elected councillors will be operating in the most minute detail schemes which have been laid down by the central Government. Next Session there is likely to be a massive Bill implementing the reform of local government. In this Bill the Government are making a mockery of local government. We had the Education (Milk) Bill. Further, the people of Glasgow voted for comprehensive education and against selection, but then the Government intervened to prevent the electorate from having their way. The National Health Service (Scotland) Bill takes powers from local authorities instead of giving the larger local authorities more power. However, those are almost trivial attacks on the powers of local authorities compared with this massive piece of housing legislation under which the Government are turning councillors into the messenger boys of the Secretary of State.
  Another reason for this massive confrontation is the inevitable approach of the Government to human problems, whether in industrial relations or in personal matters—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think this is relevant to the Amendment.
  Mr. Strang: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to say that the Government have provoked this confrontation, because that is what these default powers are about. That is why we were anxious to have a major debate on this question and to draw out the Secretary of State and to find out precisely what he envisages. We know that the massive confrontation is about to take place unless the Government are prepared to adopt a more reasonable and flexible attitude. The opposition to the Education (Milk) Act will look like an argument at a Sunday school picnic compared with what will happen in relation to this housing legislation.

  513
  The Secretary of State seeks to impose his will on local authorities, although the vast majority of hon. Members from Scotland oppose his policies. He is the Secretary of State for a country the vast majority of whose town councillors are totally opposed to the Government's policies. Only last month there was an unambiguous demonstration by the people of Scotland in the local elections that they were totally opposed to this legislation.
  Despite that, the Government persist in their inflexible approach. Why are they not prepared, even at this late stage, to say, "We are prepared to discuss this with you. We are prepared to accept the change in the composition of many crucial local authorities and we are prepared to think again. Although we do not agree with your views, we are prepared to sit down and try to reach a compromise"? We might not like the compromise, but it would at least avoid the confrontation which will undoubtedly take place if there is no change of heart.
  The debate on this issue has been characterised by obstinacy and by the Government's display of ignorance of the views and feelings of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the intense feeling among councillors about this unwarranted interference with their personal liberty? This attitude will make it almost impossible for people in my part of the country to be persuaded to enter into local government.
  Mr. Strang: That is a fair point. This is the reason for this situation, because councillors have been elected under false pretences. They have been elected to carry out what they regard as important functions in housing. They are fighting to protect these freedoms and to preserve some powers in matters which should be decided locally by locally elected councillors and not be decreed by an autocratic, obstinate, dogmatic, Secretary of State, who does not represent the views of the people of Scotland and who is almost an alien in his own country because of his display time after time of a total ignorance of the feelings and aspirations of the people of Scotland.
  6.30 p.m.
  I conclude by reverting to the important speech in Committee of the Under-Secretary of State when he was asked by my hon. Friends to say precisely what he was going to do and to explain why he needed power to take over all these additional functions, not only the functions set out in the Bill, but any functions which are somehow associated with these matters. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "This is a hypothetical matter…It is a rare occurrence. If the incredible happened, the Secretary of State would be able to issue instructions to local authority officials to exercise a particular rent scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 26th April, 1972, c. 2057.]
  We are not talking about the incredible. We are talking about a probable development. Unless the Secretary of State tones down his attitude, unless he is prepared to show some awareness of and react in some way to the views of the democratically elected local authorities in Scotland, this situation will arise time and again. I hope that even at this late stage the Secretary of State will be prepared to reconsider the position and will, at the minimum, make some effort to explain precisely why he needs these Draconian powers, and how he will act if the worst comes to the worst.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: It seems to me that what we are dealing with here is another indication of government by the few hammering their will upon the many, and another indication of the general trend which is developing, I say regrettably, in our democratic system whereby a small number of people impose their will on freely elected individuals, some of them 400 500 or 600 miles away. This is the kind of stuff of which nationalism is made, and the people of Scotland, who have demonstrated in no uncertain way how they feel about the Conservative Administration, are being forced into a situation where they are becoming more and more frustrated with what they call remote Westminster rule.
  The crux of the Amendments tabled by my hon. Friends is to pinpoint Government interference with the desire of freely elected local authorities to control their own affairs. The Bill is another indication of the way in which the Government mind is working, in addition to what they

  515
  have done in Measures to interfere with the freely expresssed will of the people of Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) cited education. What happened there was a glaring example of the action of a Government who, not very long ago, when local authorities were of the persuasion which they thought was sympathetic to them, steamrollered through a Bill which they said would enable local authorities to put forward an education point of view of their own, and not one forced upon them. When the people of Scotland cast their votes at the last election in opposition to them the Government changed their mind, and they are now trying to impose their will upon people whose views are entirely different from their own.
  Who benefits by these housing provisions? Who is it who receives all the munificent, beneficent, largesse which the Government are handing out? It is not the people of Scotland, because they, in any case, pay for the housing which they get. One way or another, it is the people of Scotland, and not any one group of individuals, who pay for the houses which are being erected.
  I submit that what the Secretary of State is doing is making it a bit easier for his Whitehall masters to hand out large sums of money in other ways; for example, by way of surtax relief, and so on. That is what the whole exercise is about. I am not saying that I completely concur with rentals which are almost on a par with what they were before the last war, but in areas where there are extremely low rents, if the houses are completely municipally-owned, it is the people of that area who should say whether they want to bear that burden or not. People in Scotland, and particularly those in the large burghs—I am thinking of Glasgow, but I am not excluding other areas which are represented by my hon. Friends—have indicated quite clearly that they want the whole aspect of housing to be left to them to build and to administer.
  In connection with this default Clause, I ask the Secretary of State to tell me how I, personally, stand in this matter. My son is a councillor in Glasgow, and he is on the housing committee. The wife of one of my hon. Friends is also on that council, but I do not know whether she
  516
  is on the housing committee. My son is bitterly opposed to the Bill. The little that I have learned about this Measure I have learned from him. He is a single man, and he lives at home. If he is surcharged, shall I have to pay the surcharge? What kind of sanction will be imposed upon me if my son takes it upon himself, in conjunction with other members of the council, I shall not say to defy, because that has a ring of arrogance about it, but not to comply—that is a better way of putting it—with the unreasonable demand which the Secretary of State is making?
  I shudder to think of the depths to which local government could be descending with the whittling away bit by bit of the power and authority which local government has. In an era in which communications are relatively easy and which, parodoxically, makes splitting up easier, we should be looking for a method of keeping our United Kingdom together. The only way in which that can be done is by a system of devolution. I submit that what the Secretary of State is doing here is making it even more difficult for a devolutionary process to take place. Local government is becoming a farce, and this is another nail in its coffin.
  I have always believed that finance is not the most important part of housing. I cannot gainsay its importance, because local authorities must have money to build houses, but it is not the most important part of housing. Raw materials, the ability to build, the willingness to build and the erection of the houses are the most important aspect of housing.
  As I have said, in any case people pay for the houses which are built, and in places such as Glasgow—I am not making any excuses, and I am not ashamed of putting in a plea for Glasgow—the housing shortage and the slums are a national responsibility. It is not the fault of the people of Glasgow that they have had to be born, live and bring up children in these areas. There is a national responsibility and the Secretary of State should not try to invoke powers to diminish that responsibility.
  Although they do not have the articulate garrulousness of Members of Parliament, ordinary people say some sensible things. Over and over again,

  517
  they say, "If there were a war, we could find the money to pay for it. Why can we not find money to demolish the slums and build the houses instead of always concerning ourselves with ways of paying for the houses?".
  Sir J. Gilmour: I could agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) if I felt that we had in Scotland a situation in housing which we wanted and of which we could be proud. But we should resist the Amendments. My right hon. Friend is trying to ensure that we provide the houses for all the people who need them.
  Conditions in Glasgow are very different from those in my constituency, where small burghs have a larger proportion of privately owned houses and they are not keen to build more council houses because at the present level of rents there would be a bigger burden on the rates. This is what has happened. In the cities, are we certain that because we have pursued a low housing rent policy over the past years in Scotland—much lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom—we have achieved better housing conditions and tackled our slum clearance much more quickly than Liverpool and London? The answer is, "No". This is why my right hon. Friend is right. If the Bill is to work, we must have these reserve powers.
  As I said on Second Reading, it is distastefully like putting the cart before the horse to take powers to force local authorities to do things in the year before reforming local government.
  Dr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman surely realises that the City of Glasgow has built more municipal houses than any comparable city in the whole of Europe.
  Sir J. Gilmour: But it is the very fact that the whole effort has had to be channelled into municipal housing that means that we have not reached the solution that we want. If we could also have had an extra amount of private housing, we might have a better situation in Glasgow.
  It is sad that we have to do this in advance of local government reform. Despite all the housing Bills that have gone through the House over the years—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) cited a great stock of them in Committee—we still have not reached
  518
  the housing situation that we want in Scotland in the shortest possible time.
  The powers my right hon. Friend seeks are an opportunity to reach the sort of housing situation that we require. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree, but at least over the past 15 or 20 years, experience has shown that housing legislation has not produced the desired results. It is well worth while to try to do it in a different way. The Amendments should therefore be resisted.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Baxter: The problem of rents is very difficult and has daunted most of us who have served on local authorities. I have been in local government or Parliament for 41 years.
  The Clause and the Amendments are rather sad. They are a measure of the Government's inability to solve the problem successfully without using the sanctions of the big whip on the local authorities. If I were Secretary of State for Scotland I should look carefully at this Clause. It presupposes a complete failure of my attempts.
  There are some commendable features of the Bill. There is reason for a fair rents basis. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) rightly said on the last Amendment, there is a method of approach which is worth some thought—that the increase should be spread over a longer period so as to give people time to adjust to new circumstances.
  It would have been better if the Secretary of State could have taken with him, if not the tenants of the houses, at least the elected representatives of the people. It must concern him that those representatives, of all political opinions, are diametrically opposed to certain aspects of this Measure. They do not disagree entirely with the principles. Everyone must agree with the need for fair rents. When inflation is running riot, the problem becomes even more difficult.
  The people of Scotland are not unreasonable; they appreciate the difficulties. They do not object to paying a fair rent for council accommodation. But I am sad to think that this Clause is the only way in which the Government can force this issue down the throats of elected representatives. It is not only the high rent increases which should concern

  519
  us all. They are bad enough. But the ratepayers will also have to carry a heavy burden. That is a breach of contract by the Government with the local authorities—the cutting away of all housing subsidies.
  In my 41 years in local government I have seen Secretaries of State, Labour and Conservative, come and go. Each has shied away from the terrible step of removing subsidies which his predecessor had agreed to pay to local authorities. I appreciate the magnitude of the task that confronts any Government or local authority in trying to be equitable and fair in this matter.
  We have spoken about those who live in local authority and privately rented accommodation. We must not overlook the third section of the community, owner-occupiers. We must be fair to all three sections of the public and I accept that it is sometimes impossible to do so.
  Because of the reasonableness of our people, I am sure that if this matter had been explained to them in reasonable terms, the Secretary of State would have had a different response. The Government should have adopted the sort of reasonable attitude taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he was Secretary of State.
  Mr. Ross: I thank my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Baxter: I am sometimes critical of my right hon. Friend, but he knows that from time to time I give him full marks for an action successfully carried out. I pay the present Secretary of State a compliment for trying to introduce a fair rent scheme which is acceptable to local authorities, tenants and ratepayers.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I agree that we must try to be fair to all three categories of people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. He mentioned owner-occupiers as the third category. He also spoke about the withdrawal of subsidies. Is he aware that the subsidies are simply being changed and that, in amount, the new subsidies will come to more than that paid in the past?
  Mr. Baxter: That is hypothetical.
  Mr. Campbell: Not at all.
  Mr. Ross: It is also untrue.
  Mr. Baxter: I would not say that the Secretary of State is deliberately misleading the House and I have no doubt that he seriously believes that local authorities will get back as much as they are losing, but I do not think that that will be the case for Stirling County Council, which has solved its local authority housing problem in terms of slum clearance, over-crowding and so on. We own about 80 per cent. of the property in the area, which is a considerable percentage. I take pride in the fact that the county of which I was a vice-convenor has such a good record in this respect. As I say, I do not believe that Stirling County Council will receive the same sum in subsidy that it has received in the past.
  Mr. Campbell: I would not wish in any way to detract from the efforts of Stirling in this matter. We have stated that in four years the total paid in subsidy in Scotland is likely to increase from about £55 million to £70 million.
  Mr. Baxter: When dealing with the last Amendment the Under-Secretary said that the figure of 37½p would be increased to 50p, and that will make up for the increase in the cost of living. If the present rate at which the cost of living is going up continues until 1975, it does not take a mathematician to show that the total amount of subsidy which will go to the people of Scotland will not be as high as the Secretary of State indicates.
  Be that as it may, the fact remains that by these provisions the Government are taking considerable powers and rights away from local authorities, and that is something which we should do only grudgingly. After all, if this establishment were as efficient as some of our local government institutions we would be in a happier position. To take away the powers of local authorities or introduce a power that is tantamount to a sanction on them should be done only with the greatest care.
  In view of our feelings about what is likely to happen to the powers vested in local authorities after local government reform, it is no wonder that we oppose the Wheatley Committee's contentions and are chary about the possibility, which seems to be borne out by the thinking of the Government, of these powers being further curtailed. This is one of the more disgraceful features of the Bill.

  521
  The giving of rent rebates to people not in local authority houses but in private accommodation is not a bad thing at all because people should be treated equitably. This aspect of the Bill has my wholehearted approval and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for trying to solve a problem that has worried many of his predecessors.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider certain aspects of his proposals, even at this late stage, and should not take steps which might make local authority representatives go against the law of the land and incur the disfavour of the court.
  Mr. Dempsey: This group of Amendments condemns the provisions in the Bill which give the Secretary of State—I am not referring specifically to the present Secretary of State—such wide powers that he could desiccate the operations of many local authorities.
  The right hon. Gentleman already has considerable powers, and I do not object to that. It is right that the right hon. Gentleman who holds his office, Labour or Conservative, should take decisions and approve or disapprove of proposals from time to time because the Government are, after all, the largest ratepayer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)found himself in that position not long ago.
  Many hon. Gentlemen opposite, some in the Government, have in all probability not had experience of being councillors. I ask them to realise precisely what is involved for our many councillors throughout Scotland. They must, for example, engage in local elections. A campaign machine is required. They must issue election addresses to convince the electors of the need to support their policies at the polls.
  We in Coatbridge and the town of Airdrie deliberately set out at the last elections to secure a mandate from the electorate to oppose this iniquitous Bill. The result was that for the first time in the past few years we have had elected a clear Labour majority in Coatbridge, and we increased the Labour majority on Airdrie Town Council. This is the mandate of the local electors.
  The Bill is saying, "Irrespective of what your local electors think or what
  522
  the secret ballot produces, and no matter what the ratepayers decide, the Secretary of State will decide matters". This reaches an unwarranted stage of interference by any Secretary of State for Scotland—by that, I mean either the present Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State. After all, local democracy has been tested and has given its verdict. Just as we are democratically elected by secret ballot and are given the mandate which we operate, it is reasonable and fair that local elected councils which have such a mandate should be entitled to conduct their operations as they wish.
  7.0 p.m.
  We should try to ensure that we have laws that it will not be necessary to break. That is what the debate is about. The propositions contained in the Bill are very serious and require a great deal of explaining. What do we mean by a "defaulting local authority"? What penalty would be imposed? For example, are councillors to be surcharged if they refuse to operate this legislation? To illustrate the seriousness of the situation I give the example of one authority—not a Scottish authority but an English authority—where the rent will rise to £21 per week. The members of that authority take the view that they were never elected to allow that or to operate such a policy, and they cannot do it. It is not that they want to break the law or to defy authority, but they just cannot in conscience justify doing a thing like that. That is how serious the provisions of the Bill are to local authority members.
  When the Minister replies, he should give us information about the penalties involved. What will it mean, for example, to councillors or councils who refuse to operate these provisions? Can it mean that they will lose their votes for seven years? Will they be surcharged and, if so, by what amount and how will the computation be arrived at? Will it mean that local authority officials, who are paid by the authority, will be instructed by the Scottish Office to do the job that the local authority should be doing? If that happens, it would bring them into unpleasant relationships with their bosses, the elected local representatives. I should like further information from the Minister about this matter.

  523
  At the end of the day, many local authority members will take the view that if they are being asked to operate a policy which is completely in conflict with their own conscience, why should they put up with the holding of an election and with the day-to-day interference in their private life by electors coming to their door. I have been visited by electors and I know what it is all about. There are no Saturdays and Sundays off for local councillors. A councillor's house is a public house. A local authority member will ask why he should suffer this when the Government are taking such powers away from him and leaving councils bereft of authority, especially when dealing with housing, one of the most sensitive services in local authority administration. The Secretary of State will say, "I will dictate the rent and the rent rebate system. I will do this and that." The councils arrive at the conclusion, "What the devil are we here for at all? Is our journey necessary?"
  These are the serious implications of the Bill. At this stage I am not concerned about scoring points. I am concerned about the future of local democracy, and that is what attracted me to participate in the debate.
  If I were allowed to digress I could quote some of the most able persons in local government who will resign as soon as the new local government district councils are introduced. They refuse to give all their time to dealing with one function, housing and stair head rows. This is unattractive and nauseating. These individuals feel so sorely about it that now they are tempted to go at an earlier date as a result of the big stick tactics provided in the Bill. In spite of all the sacrifices of these individuals in serving the public and the molestation of their family life, in spite of the interruption of their leisure time and their endeavours towards personal advancement which they are sacrificing for the sake of the community, they are bound to take the view, "Why should we bother when the man from Whitehall knows best and will decide our laws, especially in the sphere of housing, rents, rebates and rates?"
  I hope that the Government realise what they are doing. We must remember that they are saying in the Bill to
  524
  thousands of tenants that they will now have to pay subsidies, rates and rent. In reply to one of my points last night, the Minister said that it was not fair to say that they were losing all subsidies. But I have a statement from the county treasurer showing the average income and expenditure for a house in Lanarkshire. The expenditure is £172, with an income of about £67 from rent, rates of £55 and Government subsidy £50. By 1977–78, the tenant will be paying the rent plus—I emphasise this—the Government subsidy of £50, plus the rates contribution of £55—a total of £172. This is what the Bill is about and this is what is being imposed upon tenants. Councillors are resisting and rejecting this. Instead of that particular authoritative cane being waved in front of their eyes when they are being told, "You must do it", the Minister should find a much more convenient, acceptable and British way of getting around a problem of this nature.
  Would not the Minister, even at the last minute, get together with local authorities around a table to thrash it out and reach an understanding that Bills of this nature which affect local government should be introduced only after the most careful examination by representatives of local government.
  Mr. Ewing: In debating this subject after the heat and passion that has been generated by this particular aspect of the Bill in Scotland, it is difficult to realise that we are debating it in this almost funereal atmosphere of the House of Commons. I am sure that if many of those who took part in public meetings and demonstrations in Scotland were here today they would find it difficult to recognise the subject we are discussing at present.
  One thing ought to be said right away, and that is that local authorities are not saying at present, nor have they said in the past, that they will break the law. What local authorities are saying is that they will not implement the provisions of the Bill. There is a very substantial difference between breaking the law and refusing to implement the Bill.
  The Secretary of State is responsible for the present confrontation between local authorities and the Scottish Office. The one thing that is certain, and about which local authorities have no choice

  525
  is the fact that rents will rise. As my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out yesterday, the increase in revenue from rents in Scotland will amount to about £55 million in the first year alone. Local authorities have no choice about this aspect of the Bill. The Secretary of State may say in defence of this and the default powers which he seeks to take, and which we seek to amend, that he is introducing a rent rebate scheme. But this is a voluntary aspect of it. I do not want to take up valuable time in going into the arguments of take-up of social security benefits and so on, but those of us with experience in these matters know only too well that when a person has to apply for a rent rebate or any social security benefit, he is very reluctant to do so.
  Without a shadow of doubt rents will rise. The Secretary of State cannot and will not dispute that. However, there is some division of opinion as to whether the global sum given in subsidy will rise or fall. Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends accept that, because of the carrot that was dangled out with the housing submissions before 1st December, 1971, there will be an increase not in the first four years but in the first two years, and that local authorities will gain some advantage—but only in the first two years. Even the Secretary of State should realise that no local authority plans its housing need for only two years ahead. So when the Secretary of State says in these default powers that he will take over the housing administration of a local authority if it is in default of the Bill, he should be more specific. He should make clear exactly what powers the Secretary of State will take over. For instance, will he take over the repairs element in housing administration, or the letter or re-letting policy? Will he take over the planning of future needs and planning house building? Exactly what will the Secretary of State take over if local authorities find themselves in default of the Bill?
  My remarks will be brief. It is nauseating to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been accused from time to time of inspiring local authorities to defy the Government that still fresh in our memories are the tactics employed by Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland on the question of the General Teaching Council and the selective
  526
  schools in Edinburgh before the General Election when, on the advice of Conservative Members of Parliament, those teachers and the Edinburgh Corporation were advised to defy the Labour Government. Now we have a situation in which the present Government are holding themselves up as paragons of virtue saying that they ought not to be defied, even on this terrible legislation which is being introduced.
  I do not agree with everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) but I agree with him that the mere fact that these default powers are in the Bill is a clear admission of failure, of an acceptance by the Secretary of State that neither the people of Scotland nor the local authorities which represent them are prepared to accept these iniquitous measures being introduced by the Bill.
  I join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in an appeal to the Secretary of State, even at this late hour, to have second thoughts on the question of penal sanctions on local authorities which do not implement the Bill's provisions, and to adopt a more realistic and flexible attitude in order that some at least peaceful co-existence can prevail until such time as the electors of this country are not denied their right and can change the Government, thereby introducing a much more acceptable and realistic policy.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is my Member of Parliament and I remind him that it is important, in drawing comparisons between England and Scotland, to realise that the effect of these provisions on the people of Scotland is much greater than the effect of the Housing Finance Bill will have on the people of England and Wales. The simple explanation is that nearly 80 per cent, of houses in Scotland are local authority owned. That is why this Bill will have a much more far-reaching effect on the Scottish people than the Housing Finance Bill will have on the English and Welsh.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I support the Amendment. I have not taken part in housing debates for a long time, but I was impelled to do so yesterday and feel impelled again to intervene now.

  527
  It is the grossest hypocrisy that the Government and this Minister should be introducing into this most class-ridden of Measures these default Clauses. It was the bare bones of this Administration before the last election which encouraged local authorities—one in particular—to try to defy the law and look for loop-holes in it in order to preserve the class structure of education. It is particularly insulting now to have these default powers threatening councils throughout Scotland.
  The Secretary of State must no longer say, as he said earlier, that the subsidies are to be increased. He is positively oozing benevolence, yet no city or town treasurer agrees with him. The truth is that there is to be an increase not only in real terms but in terms of inflationary money values over the next three or four years—a temporary period. But in the long run the public expenditure in support of housing in Scotland is to be cut, and he knows it. That is precisely how these proposals were first presented—as a means of cutting public expenditure. He is either attempting to "con" us tonight or he was "conning" his own supporters two years ago.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: Like the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter), the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this would not keep pace with inflation. As I explained, the Financial Memorandum's estimates were made at current prices.
  Mr. Buchan: That is rather what I am trying to say. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should tomorrow examine his words in HANSARD. That ignores the second part of the run down of the subsidies after that period.
  Just as the Industrial Relations Act was not an Act dealing with industrial relations, so this Bill is not a housing Bill. It is a transference of wealth Bill. It transfers a burden to the private tenant, the council tenant, and the average owner-occupier in order to give a tax benefit to the small and already privileged and powerful wealthy group. That is the background against which the penal Clauses must be judged.
  It is for this reason that we are seeing an unprecedented situation. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware of it
  528
  and take it back to the Cabinet. In all the important sectors of political interest and conflict, the same thing is happening. We see the introduction of default powers, penal measures, the use of the law and, when no law exists, the creation of a law—as in the case of the National Industrial Relations Court—in order not to use the law as it has time honoured been, as an impartial arbiter of a healthy community, but as a means of securing victory in a political conflict which the Government themselves are provoking.
  This is a very serious situation. All great movements in history have arisen from a simple combination of factors. This is when the people are no longer content to be ruled in the old way and the Government find they can no longer rule in the old way. The pressure from below by the one becomes intolerable to the ruling group at the top and they then have to use even more Draconian measures to preserve their privileged position. Hence these two penal Clauses. It is a serious situation. It is exemplified by the attitude of the respectable bailies and the councillors of Scotland. We used to say, "Once a bailie, always a bailie". These are the people who are leading the resistance. They have dedicated themselves to the health of their communities. They are the epitome of respectability, and they are the very people leading the movement against the Bill.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Government's policies on the question of freedom. It is a curious word, freedom. Many sins are committed in its name—none so many as in the last two years. The Scottish Tory Party manifesto for the last General Election said:
  "…we believe that the right of local authorities to decide what is best for their areas should remain."
  Nothing much of that remains after this Bill. The Prime Minister said:
  "The most urgent reform of local government is to get the Government spanner out of the works. Under Labour there can never be real reform of local government for they will always seek to use their powers to bend the local authorities to their will."
  Who is bending whom to whose will now?
  The Government have created a difficult and dangerous situation. We have seen it over the question of school milk. We are seeing it today, when a default

  529
  order is being argued in the Court of Session against Glasgow City Council, which wishes to introduce comprehensive education, which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to prevent. We have seen it in the attack on trade union freedom. We see it now in this attack on local authority freedom. Today's hearing in the Court of Session is a dry run for the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he can get away with some Draconian measures on housing. The danger is not that he cannot bring all his powers to bear on the local authorities, although he has not told us what they are to be, but that he is like King Lear—
  "…I will do such things—
  What they are yet I know not; but they shall be
  The terrors of the earth."
  King Lear told us but the right hon. Gentleman has not told us. The problem is that the law itself is being brought into contempt when it is used in this partisan way, and when the law is brought into contempt by its use in a partisan way the fabric of society itself is endangered. That will be the right hon. Gentleman's epitaph in Scotland as it will be the epitaph of the whole Government.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: We have listened, as always, to very thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on this side of the House and have even heard one from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), although his was notable in being mainly a criticism of the Secretary of State in terms of these penal Clauses.
  I suppose that a reference to the Amendments is required now and again. We are seeking, obviously, to curtail the default powers contained in Clause 71. I do not want to say that I am glad to see the Secretary of State here, but he could not be any worse than the Under-Secretary of State in Committee. We got no indication from the Under-Secretary of State about the circumstances in which the default powers, amended or un-amended, might or might not be used. Having regard to the English situation, I hope this might encourage the Secretary of State to be as bold and forthcoming in spelling out what he sees might happen if local authorities fail in any of their responsibilities under the Bill.
  My hon. Friends have explained why the local authorities are so incensed by
  530
  the Bill. It is true that this is linked with many other matters. The right hon. Gentleman would be failing in his duty if he did not recognise that. I pay tribute to the work done by civil servants in preparing what might be a blue print for housing finance in accordance with Conservative ideology. It might almost be true to say that many of the officials in facing a practical problem have come up with realistic suggestions. But they are not the politicians. They are not the people who have to answer to the electors. They are not the people who have to answer local people questioning whether parliamentary democracy is effective. Therefore, it is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman merely to repeat a brief which says "We are not taking additional powers: these are old powers from this Act or the other." Everyone knows that a civil servant will look at the precedents and will tell a Minister "It is all right; you are not creating any new precedent." I hope we shall not get that case tonight because we are concerned not about where the powers have originated but about the fact that they were necessary in the old days to compel local authorities to carry out some of their functions.
  These default powers were originally necessary because too many local authorities were still run by the landed aristocracy and were not prepared even to start building houses. That is the true history of the default powers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will enlarge at least his political and historical knowledge and recognise that we are not now dealing with that kind of situation. We are dealing here with all sorts of frustrations on the part of local authorities. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Labour won the General Election in Scotland, although I am not arguing this on a nationalistic case. Does he realise the position in which he is putting honest, hardworking councillors? Constituents will come to them in future and complain that their rent is going too high. The councillors will say "I am sorry, but we have no power. This was done under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, and the Government decide these things."
  The obvious result will be an increase in the already too high level of cynicism among people who say "What the hell

  531
  is the use of bothering about local government? Why should we even vote?" Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is one of the reasons already why only 30 per cent, of the electorate vote in local elections, in spite of the other arguments in the Wheatley Report? Does not the right hon. Gentleman mix with people? So many ordinary people just will not vote, whether it be Labour, National or Tory, because they are so cynical and uninterested in local government. The Bill will add to that situation. It is against this background that many local authorities—and this is a point which may be dangerous to make—may see that they can give expression to some of their frustrations, and they are not always looking in an entirely objective way at the provisions of the Bill. It is a human failing and it is understandable in the circumstances. Unless the Secretary of State recognises that fact, his reply to our questions will be nonsense.
  7.30 p.m.
  There was a reference in the Daily Record on 13th May to the Government's attitude to local authorities. The Daily Record seemed to be the only newspaper that referred to the speech by the Under-Secretary at the Unionist Party conference. It said:
  "Scots Housing Minister George Younger said the Government would take a strong stand with local authorities who did not implement the new Rents Bill."
  There was nothing in his main speech, so I assume he referred to it in replying to the debate. This is not a hypothetical question. Suppose a local authority—Clydebank or Saltcoats—refuses to implement the Bill. What will the Secretary of State do? Some of the authorities think that they will merely pass a resolution telling the Secretary of State "We are not implementing that part of the Bill dealing with increases and rebates, but we will operate everything else." Does the Secretary of State make an order or appoint a commissioner or send in someone to do the job? What other housing functions, other than fixing rents and rebates, will he take over? Will a commission be appointed in the way the English Minister has said? Will he start doing the things which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is keen on, such as selling council houses? What other powers will the
  532
  Secretary of State use? Which powers does he see himself using, and will he take over all the housing functions of the housing authorities?
  We are entitled to some indication, because this is not a hypothetical situation. Local authorities, including Scottish local authorities, will be meeting in Sheffield on Saturday. Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland still have to make up their minds about this. I will not say that the Secretary of State is using the big stick if he explains to us what he thinks will happen. We are entitled to know what functions he will take over and in what circumstances councillors can be surcharged, perhaps ending up in gaol—if they do not have fathers like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller)—if they do not pay fines.
  In the absence of any replies from the Under-Secretary in Committee, I hope that the Secretary of State will say something tonight.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: In introducing the Amendments the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) used extravagant language about the Bill. His description rendered the Bill unrecognisable. From the way he described it, it could hardly have been a Bill which is introducing a comprehensive rebate scheme for the first time in the history of housing in Scotland, including a scheme covering tenants in private accommodation—a proposal which has been very widely welcomed in Scotland.
  From the hon. Member's description one would hardly recognise a Bill which is limiting the increase which can be made in the public sector rents on average to 50p per week per year. Many people working in housing matters, regardless of their politics, and especially social workers, have been advocating that the assistance from taxpayers and ratepayers should be related to the circumstances of the family and the individual and no longer to bricks and mortar. That is the reply I can give to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), who asked what the Bill held for the people. The answer is that the Bill relates the assistance from the Government to the circumstances of the individual and the family for the first

  533
  time. On my visits to housing association and other schemes in Glasgow before I became Secretary of State I heard social workers advocating strongly that this was something, above all, that a Government, no matter what Government, should do. It has now been done in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Kelvingrove spoke unusually extravagantly about my obeying my Whitehall masters. I think that was the term he used. But in the Bill we are removing especially the burden on the Scottish ratepayers who at present are paying 35 per cent. of the cost of council housing in Scotland. In England and Wales the equivalent amount is about 7 per cent. The estimates of the increase in the Exchequer contribution at current prices, and, therefore, making allowance for any inflation, is from about £55 millions at present to £70 millions to £75 millions in four years. The United Kingdom exchequer contribution is increasing, and in comparison to the English and Welsh position the burden on the Scottish ratepayer is being reduced. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot try to continue with his accusation that this is something which is being done at the instigation of Whitehall masters.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: On the 35 per cent. contribution of the ratepayers to the housing revenue accounts will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how many council tenants pay into the 35 per cent. rate contribution.
  Mr. Campbell: I intended coming to that later. Council tenants are ratepayers just like other people. When they pay what they call "the rent" they do not realise that they are paying rates as well, because the two go together. Therefore, with other ratepayers in Scotland they will benefit from the easing of this burden, which is estimated to amount to £20 million in four years' time.
  The hon. Member for Kelvingrove spoke about slums and the need for slum clearance in Glasgow, and I agree with him. But the Bill provides for a new subsidy for slum clearance for the first time, and we expect that this will accelerate the clearance of slums.
  Dr. Miller: If the Bill does everything that the right hon. Gentleman says it does, why does it meet with universal dis-
  534
  approval from the Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland?
  Mr. Campbell: That is a very easy one. It may met with disapproval from the Labour groups in the local authorities but that is largely because of the extraordinary propaganda put out by Labour Members. We heard it this afternoon. Listening to it, one could not have recognised that it was describing the Bill. I did not recognise it as describing any Bill I have introduced. Hon. Members on the Opposition side seem completely deceived by their own propaganda and are overlooking what is contained in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) pointed out that there were difficult circumstances in different parts of Scotland. We referred to this at Question Time the other day. Although there are lists of applicants for houses in parts of Scotland there are also large numbers of council houses which are empty. There are also complaints about large estates with very few amenities, and I do not need to expand on that.
  These are some of the problems involved in getting the sort of housing that is needed in the places where it is needed. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) mentioned ratepayers, and I have said that the ratepayers of Scotland will benefit. The tenants are ratepayers, too. He thought that the estimates in the Financial Memorandum would be wiped out by inflation. I have pointed out to him and to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that it is expressly stated that these are estimated at current prices. That is not, therefore, a valid criticism.
  Mr. Baxter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the full amount of subsidy, as indicated in the Financial Memorandum, will be paid irrespective of what else happens?
  Mr. Campbell: I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman even further. These are the best estimates that can be made of what is expected to happen, but they are not limits or ceilings. Subsidy will be payable under the Bill to the extent that entitlement arises. If the need is greater, increased expenditure will reflect this.
  Turning to Amendment No. 141, Clause 71 augments the default powers of the Secretary of State under Section 195 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966. The

  535
  Amendment would restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to take over the functions of the local authority to the powers contained in Parts II, III and IV of the Bill. These are very necessary reserve powers. We do not expect a situation of this kind to arise. This is a hypothetical situation, and we would regard it as most unlikely, despite some of the things that have been said tonight. When local authorities see what is in the Bill instead of listening to the version that we have heard this evening, they will realise how it will benefit the ratepayers. Authorities will surely think several times before depriving their tenants of the substantial benefits which the Bill will confer upon them and depriving private tenants of the benefits of allowances and depriving Scottish ratepayers of the benefits of the reduced rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account's deficit.
  Mr. Gourlay: Surely we are no longer in a hypothetical situation, because a number of prominent Scottish local authorities, knowing the contents of the Bill, have already said that they are not prepared to implement that part of the Measure dealing with rent increases.
  Mr. Campbell: I have read some reports of what has been said. This Bill is on Report here; it has yet to go to another place. It is a little early for any local authority to be making a decision.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: If local authorities say to the Secretary of State "The minute this Bill leaves the House tonight we will not implement it. We regard the Secretary of State as being responsible for any rents", what is the position? Are they free from any prospect of surcharge?
  Mr. Campbell: They will look at the Bill after it has been passed, after it has been to another place, and they will see that there are some default powers, as well as many benefits. That is the time for them to take decisions on this matter.
  Mr. Dempsey: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the points that I have raised? Would he explain what the consequences of default will be for a local authority?
  Mr. Campbell: Amendment No. 142 seeks to delete the new provision con-
  536
  tained at paragraph (b) of the Clause, to the effect that as part of a default order made under Section 356 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, or as part of a supplementary order imposing a rents scheme under Section 195 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966, or under an order rendering exercisable by himself the powers of the authority under the same section the Secretary of State may direct that specified requirements of the Bill shall be modified or cease to have effect.
  This provision is essential. It will allow the Secretary of State to direct that, for the purpose of remedying the default, an authority should increase its rents by more than the maximum average rent increase prescribed by Clause 28 to obtain the target rent income which would have been achieved had the maximum average rent increase prescribed by Clause 28 been correctly charged over the required period.
  Mr. William Hannan: An added penalty.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Campbell: It is not. It means that if the local authority does not carry out something in the Bill it will not be at an advantage later over another local authority which has carried it out. Similarly, to recoup lost rent income it might be necessary to prescribe a higher limit than the 75p per week prescribed in Clause 30 for individual weekly rent increases.
  Otherwise, without these provisions, it would be unfair between different authorities which correctly implemented the Bill and those which did not. We hope that this situation will not arise. Situations have arisen when Secretaries of State have had to serve default orders. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) served one in 1969. These are things which we hope happen only rarely in Scotland, but Governments of all political colours have had to have these reserve powers, hoping that they would not have to be used.
  When the local authorities have realised what is in the Bill and how it will benefit them, as opposed to the version of the Bill which I have seen at times, then I feel it will be most unlikely that situations will be created

  537
  in which these Clauses will need to be used.
  Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) expressed regret that the Under-Secretary, in attempting to explain the default powers in Committee, had singularly failed to do so. He suggested that the Secretary of State could not possibly be as bad.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I was wrong.
  Mr. Younger: We knew that was coming.
  Mr. Ross: Of course, because we know the right hon. Gentleman and we know his limitations. We are trying to be kind to him. Our Amendments are related purely and simply to the default powers of the Secretary of State. We have sought to find out what he will do in carrying out his duties and responsibilities under this legislation. He spent the first 11 minutes of his speech giving us a prelude to his Third Reading speech. This will be about the fourth time that we have heard that speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman must accept responsibility for what he says. He was purporting to reply to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). For 11 minutes, he strove to avoid what was relevant. He is learning quickly from his immature junior Minister. He tried to arrange matters so that only the four minutes of his speech remaining would be related to the substance of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman gave no indication of the functions that he intends shall be taken over. That is the first Amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan asked the right hon. Gentleman directly whether it was intended to take over the letting functions of local authorities and the whole management of the housing revenue account. My hon. Friend asked whether the Government intended to sell off to private builders land that local authorities had already bought and whether it was intended to resort to the decanting of housing. What is the right hon. Gentleman's intention in taking the power to take over not only the function in respect of which the local authorities have failed to fulfil their statutory obligation in his
  538
  view but the other functions as well? On my reading of the Clause, I think that the right hon. Gentleman could have accepted this Amendment without reducing his powers. Of course, this is not exactly the best-drafted Bill that I have seen coming from the Scottish Office. However, I will come to that later.
  The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that he intended to take over powers or functions, but he gave no indication of those in his mind. He said that the local authorities were misguided and ignorant and that they had been deluded by propaganda. Local authorities in Scotland have as good a civil service as the right hon. Gentleman has—
  Mr. John Robertson: It is the same one.
  Mr. Ross: I am talking about the municipal civil service—the town clerks, the treasurers, and the rest of it.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Why reorganise local government?
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had better ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The fact is that not only has the right hon. Gentleman given little credit to the municipal civil service, but he knows quite well that he relies on it when he is preparing for this kind of legislation. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Scotland's municipal civil servants have not been able to make their own estimates about the future of housing, rents and the effect of the Government's rebate scheme as against the existing rebate schemes? A survey was made recently in Glasgow of the effect on a certain number of people of the Government's rebate scheme as against the Glasgow scheme. Three to one are worse off. All these facts are known to the local authorities.
  Behind this proposal is what the local authorities construe to be a breach of faith and the taking from them of the duty of determining rents which has been theirs since they first started building local authority houses. I can remember the time when we asked the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) to include in his powers of default the power to act against a local authority

  539
  which was charging rents which were too high. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not do it, that local authorities fixed their own rents and that he did not want to interfere. That was on 15th March 1962.
  The Government are prepared to be tough with local authorities, but they are not prepared to tell the country in what respects they intend to be tough. They should not forgot that when they deal with local authorities they are dealing with men and women who have given dedicated voluntary service to municipal government. They and their families have been in it for decades. They never got a penny. They never wanted a penny. They wanted to serve the public. As they seethe position, these default powers are unworthy of a Government who believe in democracy. The Government are telling local authorities what to do, and the local authorities are becoming the unthinking agents of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. No longer can they say what rents are to be. They have to apply the rents decided by the Government.
  During all our discussions, there has been not a single movement on the part of the Government to accept any Amendment which seemed to challenge their figures. That is an indication of weakness. It is not an indication of strength. The Government are afraid that if they take out one brick the whole edifice will crumble. If that is their view, clearly this is a pretty bad Bill.
  The Secretary of State said that it was hypothetical what local authorities would do. Then he said that it was unlikely to happen. Finally, he said almost despairingly that he hoped that it would not happen. The way that the right hon. Gentleman has conducted himself, through his Under-Secretary, has created a confrontation. The Government have not even accepted the powers that we offered them yesterday whereby they could take a side step to avoid a confrontation. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to take that power. I warned the Under-Secretary about this in Committee. He seemed to be listening seriously. He said that there were no new powers, that the Government would not use them, blah, blah, blah.
  540
  We had a very different speech from the English Minister about his attitude to English local authorities. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, I am sure that he will be pushed from behind by his colleagues to take a big stick to those local authorities which have not Tory majorities. What about the electors? They do not return Tories when it comes to general elections. This is the great weakness of the Secretary of State. He cannot speak for the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Galbraith: He can speak for justice.
  Mr. Ross: He can speak only for what he thinks is justice.
  Mr. Galbraith: And for what we think is justice.
  Mr. Ross: I shall quote later some of the words of the hon. Member for Hill-head. I hope that he stands by what he says. He despises people who live in local authority houses. It was he who called them second-class citizens. That is the hon. Gentleman's view about the people of Scotland.
  This is behind the whole idea that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are putting forward. But I must warn them that they are moving towards the most serious confrontation that we have seen in local government in the past 50 years. The responsibility will rest entirely upon the Government. If they have failed to convince local authorities that this is a wonderful Bill, the responsibility is theirs. They have the Press, television and radio at their disposal. The trouble is that they have not got a case. The knowledge of the problem arises mainly among those working in the field
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State has failed to make his intentions clear. As Secretary of State he has a responsibility to see that his Bill works. If a local authority tells him that it does not intend to break the law but that it is not implementing the Bill and that it is its own responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House what he intends to do and how quickly he intends to do it.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary have opposing views, The Secretary of State said that the Bill

  541
  was not law, that we were only on Report, that it was not yet through the House of Lords, and that only after that could decisions be taken. However, the Under-Secretary was telling local authorities that they should be preparing now and that they should be raising rents in the month of May of this year. We want to know what preparations the Secretary of State has made. A prudent Secretary of State faced with this situation ought to know what he is doing. He should have made
  his preparations. He has given no indication of them. In view of that, I do not believe that this House should give him the additional default powers for which he asks.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 258.

  Division No. 209.]

  AYES

  [8.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McBride, Neil

  Albu, Austen

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Foley, Maurice

  McElhone, Frank

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Foot, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ashley, Jack

  Forrester, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ashton, Joe

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Barnes, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Marsden, F.

  Baxter, William

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mendelson, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hamling, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Booth, Albert

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hardy, Peter

  Milne, Edward

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

  Harper, Joseph

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

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Murray, Ronald King

  Cant, R. B.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carmichael, Neil

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, Bert

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Greville

  Padley, Walter

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Paget, R. T.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Palmer, Arthur

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pardoe, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prescott, John

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kinnock, Neil

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lambie, David

  Probert, Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rankin, John

  Doig, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lawson, George

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Driberg, Tom

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunn, James A.

  Leonard, Dick

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Ellis, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Roper, John

  Evans, Fred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ewing, Harry

  Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Rowlands, Edward

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wells, William (Walsall, N)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Swain, Thomas

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Taverne, Dick

  Whitehead, Philip

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

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

  Whitlock, William

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Sillars, James

  Tinn, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Silverman, Julius

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Woof, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wallace, George

  Steel, David

  Watkins, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Weitzman, David

  Mr. Walter Harrison and

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Strang, Gavin

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knox, David

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fidler, Michael

  Lamont, Norman

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lane, David

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Astor, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fowler, Norman

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Fox, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Batsford, Brian

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

  Luce, R. N.

  Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gardner, Edward

  McLaren, Martin

  Benyon, W.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maddan, Martin

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Marten, Neil

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mather, Carol

  Bowden, Andrew

  Green, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Grylls, Michael

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bray, Ronald

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Mawby, Ray

  Brewis, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Buck, Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Money, Ernle

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Havers, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Burden, F. A.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monro, Hector

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hicks, Robert

  More, Jasper

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morrison, Charles

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Holland, Philip

  Mudd, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Murton, Oscar

  Clegg, Walter

  Hordern, Peter

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hornby, Richard

  Neave, Airey

  Cooke, Robert

  Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Coombs, Derek

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Cooper, A. E.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Normanton, Tom

  Cordle, John

  Hunt. John

  Nott, John

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Onslow, Cranley

  Cormack, Patrick

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Crouch, David

  James, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Percival, Ian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jessel, Toby

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Dean, Paul

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Emery, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Raison, Timothy

  Farr, John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Fell, Anthony

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  544

  545

  Redmond, Robert

  Stainton, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waddington, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh. W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Risdale, Julian

  Stokes, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rost, Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravdsend)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wilkinson, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon. N.W.)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sharples, Richard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

  Temple, John M.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Simeons, Charles

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Sinclair, Sir George

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

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tilney, John

  Younger, Hn. George

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

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Soref, Harold

  Trew, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Speed, Keith

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mr. Michael Jopling and

  Spence, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robert

  Mr. Hamish Gray.

  Sproat, Iain

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  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 6th June], 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.

  Clause 75
  TENANCIES AT A RENT UNALTERABLE OVER A LONG PERIOD
  Amendments made: No. 145, in page 57, line 32, leave out from 'tenancy' to first 'of' in line 33.
  No. 146, in line 35, after 'Act)', insert:
  'other than—

  (a) a house for the time being subject to a weekly or other periodical tenancy,

  (b) house for the time being subject to a tenancy granted, by the authority or any predecessor in title, before 1st August, 1971,

  (c) a house which, whether before the coming into force of this Act or later, was acquired by the authority from a person other than another local authority, which when acquired was regarded by the authority as only likely to be available for use as a house for a period not exceeding ten years and which is for the time being subject to a tenancy which was granted before it was so acquired, or

  (d) a house for the time being excluded from this section by a direction of the Secretary of State subject to such conditions, if any, and for such period, as may be specified in the direction, being a general direction, or a direction given on the application of an authority for a particular case'.

  No. 147, in page 58, line 35, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  Clause 79
  CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 148, in page 62, line 10, at end insert:
  Provided that the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument bring any provision of this Act into force, except any provision which expressly provides otherwise, before the expiration of the said period of one month.
  (3A) Any reference in any provision of this Act to the coming into force of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the date on which that provision comes into force.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  Schedule 8
  TERMINATION OF PART OF HOUSING CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM
  Amendments made: No. 149, in page 96, line 21, after 'authority', insert:
  'for the demolition of the house'.
  No. 150, in line 25, at end insert:
  'or the house is such a house as is referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above.
  (5) Notwithstanding sub paragraph (4) above, subsection (2) of the said section 93 shall not have effect where—

  (a) the request by the local authority for the demolition of the house was duly made before the date of the coming into force of this Act, and the local authority, before that date, satisfied the Secretary of State as described in sub-paragraph (4) above, or

  (b) the house was demolished before the coming into force of this Act,

  and the house would be such a house as is referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above except that it is vacated in the year 1972–73.'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  Schedule 9
  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 151, in page 99, line 34, at end insert:
  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1963 (C. 12)
  1A. In section 3 (reduction of rate support grants in respect of low rent income)—

  (a) in subsection (3), in paragraph (a) for the words from 'under paragraph (a)' to 'received' there shall be substituted the words 'under paragraphs 1(a) and (b), 1(2) and 1(4) of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 less any rent rebates payable by them for that year under a rebate scheme;' and in the proviso for the words from 'in pursuance' to the end there shall be sub stituted the words 'under a rebate scheme.';

  (b) in subsection (4), for paragraphs (c) and (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

  '(c) the expression "rebate scheme" has the same meaning as in section 15 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972;'.

  No. 152, in page 102, line 25, at end insert:
  12A. In Schedule 1 (rate support grants), in paragraph 4(2) of Part II after the word '1963'there shall be inserted the words 'as amended by paragraph 1A of Schedule 9 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972'.
  No. 153, in page 105, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert:
  10. Where the rent specified in a certificate of fair rent includes any amount which, if the rent specified in the certificate had been registered, would require to be noted on the register in pursuance of section 43(1 A) of this Act, that amount shall be noted on the certificate; and there shall be included among the matters with respect to which representations may be made or consultations are to be held or notices to be given under this Schedule, any amount to be noted on the certificate in pursuance of this paragraph.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

  Schedule 11
  ENACTMENTS REPEALED
  Amendments made: No. 154, in page 113, line 39, column 3, after '70(2)', insert:
  'the word "or" occurring after the word "certificate" and'.
  No. 155, in line 43, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 80(2) the words "or confirm" '.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
  As the White Paper "The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland" stated in July last year, this Bill is designed to replace obsolete financial policies which are no longer appropriate and are no longer either fair or effective, and to enable enough homes to be built in the places needed and of the kinds which people require and can afford.
  One aspect of the total housing problem of Scotland is the just distribution of costs between ratepayer, taxpayer and tenant. We have always made it clear that tenants who can reasonably afford to pay more rent should not be protected by outdated rent control legislation, or outdated local authority rent structures, at the expense of other ratepayers who can even less afford the burden of subsidising such arrangements.
  An essential part of the Bill is to provide a framework for the fixing of rents throughout the public and private sectors—pooled historic costs and the balancing of the housing revenue account in the former, and the fair rent principle, originating in the 1965 Act, in the latter.
  We have made it clear that we are committed to increased Exchequer aid for public sector housing in Scotland. I point out again that the estimate published with this Bill is that this aid is expected to amount to about £70 million to £75 million in 1975–76, compared with about £55 million in 1971–72.
  This means substantially more being contributed by the United Kingdom taxpayer and the present heavy burden on the Scottish ratepayer being reduced. The ratepayer will continue, properly, to bear a certain proportion of the housing costs of a local authority. But, for the first time, these contributions will be specific proportions of total expenditure. Overall, there will be a welcome reduction in the burden on housing on Scottish ratepayers, from about £40 million in 1971–72 to £15 million to £20 million in 1975–76. That is more than half.
  It has been the ratepayers of Scotland who have had this burden, as I mentioned earlier today, of 35 per cent. of council housing costs. In England and Wales the proportion has been about

  549
  7 per cent. only. We are bringing relief for Scotland; and Scottish ratepayers will no longer have this inequitable treatment.
  High on the list of major new departures which I single out for special mention is the new housing expenditure subsidy which, for the first time, will enable local authorities with substantially rising costs in any year, compared with the previous year, to obtain Exchequer help to meet them from whatever source they arise. This help, which will run from between 10 and five years, each time an entitlement arises, will be calculated on the basis, not only of the costs of new house building and the acquisition of the necessary land, but also on the costs of repairs, maintenance and management of council houses.
  As I have said, Exchequer help will increase, but it will be available for the whole range of local housing functions. This new subsidy is introduced at a time when local authorities will be needing to review their housing needs more comprehensively. It will encourage them with financial help to do so—in addition to direct help by way of improvement grant and environmental improvement grant.
  In the past, quantity has been the most important factor in most areas. This will still be true in some areas for some years to come, and I expect the Bill to give additional help to those areas for new building; but for others, quality, type and location will now be the overriding factors—the improvement of the standards of maintenance and amenity in council schemes and when here again, substantial programmes of work are involved, this new subsidy will be available to help.
  Increasingly important will be the assessment and the accuracy of assessments of housing needs. A Working Group chaired by Professor Culling worth has recently produced a report on the methods by which local authorities should review and estimate the total housing needs of their areas. I hope to publish this report shortly. It does not attempt to forecast or advise local authorities what to do, but rather gives them advice on the means by which to formulate their own housing policies. It is clear that this report will herald a new approach, involving public and private sectors, to the
  550
  exercise of their statutory housing finances by local authorities.
  The housing expenditure subsidy in the Bill anticipates and encourages in the local authority sphere the adoption of this approach. I am sure that both sides of the House would again thank Professor Culling worth for another contribution which he has made like those in the past in considering our housing problems in Scotland.
  The Bill also provides for the first time for a new slum clearance subsidy to help those local authorities which still have major problems in this area. This, again, is a major innovation. This new subsidy will be a tremendous help to stimulate vigorous action by local authorities on the demolition of our remaining slums. For too long we have had an enormous new building programme, but a demolition programme which has failed to keep pace. I look forward to the day, not very far distant, when with the help of this new subsidy we shall see the last of the slums cleared away from our cities and towns in Scotland.
  The concentration of help is also a major feature of the rent rebate and allowance subsidies. Here again there are major innovations.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Secretary of State mentioned that the demolition programme has not kept pace with the new building programme. Is it not right that slum clearance rose from 12,000 to 19,000 in 1970 to 26,000 last year? Is it his object to secure a target of clearance of 30,000 slums a year, and if so, will that be achieved?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that in the past there had been large building programmes but demolition programmes which were not large enough to keep pace. We are hoping to do more demolition of slums. Already there are signs of an increase in slum clearance.
  Dr. Mabon: May I nevertheless have an answer to my question?
  Mr. Campbell: It is difficult to make estimates. For the first time we have a new subsidy related to slum clearance. The signs which I have seen in Scotland indicate that local authorities with slums to clear recognise this is a higher priority

  551
  than before. I hope to see some very good results.
  I had moved on to rent rebates and allowances. First, a national model scheme of rent rebates available to everyone in Scotland is included in the Bill. Secondly, one of the biggest steps forward for many years is the creation of a new rent allowance system for tenants of privately owned property. The Labour Government introduced the fair rents system in 1965, but they did nothing about a national system of help for those tenants who could not reasonably afford to pay these higher fair rents out of their own pockets. The rent allowances under the Bill make good this glaring omission.
  No rent increases in the private sector have been caused by the Bill, which is not yet enacted. Rent increases in the private sector already taking place are the result of the Acts passed in the time of the Labour Government. Until the rent allowance scheme comes into force at the end of the year, there can be no help from the Exchequer for families needing it to meet those new rents. The Bill puts right a failure by the previous Government, and it has been widely welcomed as fair and imaginative.
  The model rebate and allowance scheme is better than the majority of existing rent rebates schemes operated by local authorities.
  Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that many local authorities in Scotland, like Ayr County and Airdrie Burghs, do not at present operate a rebate scheme?
  Mr. Campbell: Some local authorities do not. About 90 per cent. of local authority tenants are covered by some form of rent rebate scheme. The trouble has been that they are—
  Mr. David Lambie rose—
  Mr. Campbell: I must finish what I am saying. One difficulty, to which I am coming, is that they are different. Some of the schemes are not as good as others. People may move from one area where a scheme operates on a certain basis to another area where a scheme, from their point of view, is not so good. By having a national uniform scheme for the first time in Scotland, not only shall
  552
  we have a scheme which will be better than the majority of existing rent rebate schemes, but if people have to move they will be familiar with the system.
  Mr. Lambie: The Secretary of State seemed to criticise local authorities like Airdrie, Ayr County and the small Burgh of Salt coats because in the past they did not need a rent rebate scheme. Will he be honest and state that the reason they did not need a rent rebate scheme was that rents were low? We need to introduce a rent rebate scheme only when we have high rents. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is saying to local authorities, "Put up your rents by £5 a week and we will give you £1 back in rent rebate". But people will be paying £4 more than before the rent rebate scheme was introduced.
  Mr. MacArthur: Nonsense.
  Mr. Campbell: It was my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) who mentioned particular local authorities, not I. I indicated that a large proportion of local authority tenants are covered by schemes of one kind or another, though some of those schemes are not very good. It has not been necessary to have such a scheme in Salt coats for the reason given by the hon. Gentleman. But where there have been indefensibly low rents, the ratepayers have borne a burden quite out of proportion to what they should bear. The Bill will restore the balance.
  Earlier both sides were in agreement that tenants are also ratepayers. Therefore, they will benefit. When they pay what they call "the rent", they also pay rates. Many do not realise that a large proportion of the rent comprises the rates which will benefit them under the provisions of the Bill.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned 90 per cent. of tenants as the proportion at present covered by a form of rent rebate. That is true. That was the figure at the time we left office. When the right hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary of State in 1964 was not the figure 50 per cent.? Does not that rather damage the image of a man anxious to extend rent rebates? Having agreed on a uniform rent rebate system by establishing the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee and having the

  553
  Brownlie Committee report, which has generally been accepted on both sides, why do we make so much of it?
  Mr. Campbell: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman should refer to the time when I was Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office. At that time we were trying to get rent rebate schemes started and we met with opposition from the Labour Party. I should say straight away that I exculpate the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock because they saw the light. It was other colleagues of theirs on the back benches who opposed rent rebate schemes when I was advocating them in 1963 and 1964. The opposition which came from the Scottish Labour Party alarmed people and frightened local authorities from introducing them. After the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock saw the light and gave their encouragement to rent rebate schemes which we were getting started in the early 1960s. I am glad that we converted the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. We are now finishing the job. We began it by encouraging rent rebate schemes. The rent rebate schemes in the new towns have been a very good model.
  I must emphasise that the model scheme is constructed on a basis recommended by the Brownlie Committee, which the hon. Member for Greenock mentioned. Yet some of his hon. Friends have been criticising the scheme while the Bill has been going through the House. The scheme is different from some existing schemes. It deliberately seeks, as those schemes do not, to concentrate aid upon families with low incomes. For many people, the rebates will be larger in future, and some people will qualify for the kind of rebate which means that they pay no rent at all.
  The assistance which the Bill, through its new subsidies, will give to housing associations is another major landmark. These associations provide an alternative, albeit at present a small one in Scotland, between the purely public sector and the purely private sector. In particular, they are increasingly making provision for meeting the specialised housing needs of certain groups in our population, particularly the elderly and the disabled. This is very welcome.
  Mr. Ross: How many?
  Mr. Campbell: Not enough at present, as I have said, but this is a movement we are seeking to encourage.
  Here again, the Bill explicitly meets the needs of the Scottish situation. Not only have we improved it during its passage through the House by increasing the Exchequer support for new building in the early years in which any deficit may be incurred, but we have introduced a special, and purely Scottish, improvement subsidy to help and encourage the provision of additional housing association accommodation through conversion or improvement. This is another major step forward. I greatly hope that it will be used by housing associations to the full.
  Local authorities will be helped in the management of their own houses through the provision in the Bill enabling them, if they wish, to pay the removal expenses of tenants. This last provision reflects what we know to be the desire of many people to have greater freedom of choice, and the desire of many local authorities to use their housing stock to the best advantage so long as this does not impose any individual financial hardship upon their tenants.
  Not only will such expenses be payable at the discretion of a local authority if the tenant moves to another local authority house more fitted to his current and immediate future needs; it will also be payable if he buys a house in the private sector.
  I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, for the way in which he handled the Bill during a very long and strenuous Committee stage. My hon. Friend admirably explained the Bill to the Committee. The Committee broke all Scottish Committee endurance records, because, so far as can be checked, the 35 sittings and the 114 hours which the Committee spent considering the Bill have not been found to have been exceeded, certainly since the War and, so far as can be ascertained, ever by a Scottish Committee.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: It may well be that all my colleagues who served on the Committee appreciated the Under-Secretary's efforts in explaining the

  555
  Bill in Committee, but there were so few of us on the Committee that we have not heard anything about it yet.
  Mr. Campbell: I do not know for how many hours the Committee would have sat if there had been more hon. Members on it. With the membership it had there was no lack of those who were willing to contribute at any moment of the day or night.
  I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) who during this long time had the duty of keeping a quorum and my hon. Friends who besides keeping the quorum also made their contributions.
  The Bill not only recasts the subsidy system to meet present and future requirements; it also marks the beginning of a new period of opportunity for local authorities, for tenants, and for owner-occupiers, in Scotland. I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: In the Opposition's view, the Bill should not be read the Third time. It started as an iniquitous Bill. After having been handled in the Committee over a record period of sittings, it remains by and large an iniquitous Bill.
  I do not maintain that there are not certain good features in the Bill. There are a number of minor technical advantages embodied in the Bill. I select three good features of the Bill. I have not exhausted the good features, but I have almost exhausted them, because those I will not mention are those which are of a minor technical nature. It is the major principle of the Bill which we have opposed and which we continue to oppose.
  The three features I select as being good ones are the rent allowances and rent rebates, the slum clearance subsidy, and the technical changes in the housing revenue account. These changes are generally welcomed. I add to them certain minor technical changes which the Secretary of State mentioned and which I will not take up time by repeating.
  The mass of the Bill is controversial, and it is confrontation politics. It is part of confrontation politics at its most dangerous as practised by this Government.
  Mr. Galbraith: What does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "confrontation politics"? This is a new term which I would like explained.
  Mr. Murray: I think I can explain it as I go along.
  Mr. Ross: My hon. and learned Friend will have to use words of one syllable to get it over to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith).
  Mr. Murray: Confrontation politics means at the very least that the Government are inviting a head-on collision between their own dogma and the consensus of the mass of people. Despite repeated warnings from this side of the House, the Government seem to be entirely unaware that they are treading this dangerous path of brinkmanship. There is a sharp cleavage between the two sides in their approach to housing need.
  It is right that they should dwell for a few moments on this vital cleavage, because it is the thinking of the two sides which shows the characteristic differences between the politics of the two sides. It is a serious matter, and I hope that in what I say I shall endeavour not to put unfairly what I take to be the philosophy behind the Bill. I am sure that I shall be corrected if I am unfair, but it is my endeavour not to be unfair because it is important to see what is the difference in attitude between two sides, and what its consequence may be.
  The Opposition's approach is that the housing need in Scotland today—and it has been for all too many years—is overwhelming, and that it must get overriding priority until it is met. And it must be met in this generation. It is no use putting it off to future generations. In short, our approach is that housing is essentially a social service and that its financing should be approached on that basis, and on no other. This approach springs from a deep and sincere conviction, born of decades of despair and desperate housing conditions in Scotland, that only the public conscience, backed by public money, will give decent housing to the people of Scotland.
  At the juncture of this confrontation we should recall that relative consensus, in contrast with confrontation—this is for

  557
  the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith)—has ruled between the two World Wars, and that it has been a consensus not only between the two sides in Parliament, but between local and central Government.
  It is right to point out to the Government today, as has already been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and by some of my hon. Friends, that the confrontation which they are inviting—indeed, which they are challenging the people of this country to take up—is not only a confrontation between the two sides in Parliament, but a confrontation between the central Government and local government.
  Mr. Galbraith: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the 1962 Act avoided this confrontation?
  Mr. Murray: I would. Confrontation has existed only in the sense that from time to time there have been disagreements about what should be done. For example, Tory Governments have emphasised the need to give more help to private enterprise, while Labour Governments have always emphasised the need to give more help to the public financing of housing. There have been bitter disagreements—I do not want to maintain that there have not—about the 1957 Act and 1962 Acts. I have no doubt that there was bitter opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were the Opposition against Measures introduced by my right hon. Friend during his term of office.
  Mr. Ross: They did no know enough about them.
  Mr. Murray: That is probably so. No doubt from time to time they raised their voices in protest against what they saw was happening, because what they saw happening during my right hon. Friend's term of office was so obviously beneficial to the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I realise that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not a Member of the House at the time. May I tell him that we helped and encouraged the right hon. Gentleman with his fair rent scheme? We improved it.
  Mr. Murray: I make no comment on
  558
  that. I have been diverted from the point that I wanted to make, and I now want to return to it.
  Disagreements in the past, as it were on the surface of the broad consensus about what should be done for housing, are far different from confrontation, and that is why I answered the hon. Member for Hillhead in the way that I did. The Bill represents the death of that consensus, and with it dies some of the good faith which used to exist between central Government and local government in housing. The established system of long-term subsidies is to be swept away, and on any view this is a breach of faith, if not a breach of contract, with local government which regarded the security of 60 years' subsidy as something on which it could count.
  Housing as a social service must be universal in principle, and not selective. That is a basic difference of view between the two sides, and it is because of that that so much that has been said from the Government benches during this debate and in Committee has been beside the point. The Labour Government's legislation was carried out and operated against a background of the view that rents as a whole should be limited and should not rise above a certain level, because the view that was taken then, and the view that is taken now, is that universal benefits are generally the fairest way of meeting the housing need.
  We appreciate, of course, the Government's point of view. They say that selective benefits are fairer. We disagree, but they should understand that this is a perfectly legitimate difference of view. We think that it is fair to have universal benefits and they think that selective benefits are fairer. Housing as a social service must be under public control, answerable to the democratically elected representatives, whether in local or central Government.
  Third, we believe that house building in Scotland, if it is to come anywhere near meeting the need in this or even the next generation, must draw its power and initiative from public finance and public enterprise. It is only when those basic needs are met, in our view, that the luxuries which are mentioned in the White Paper—such as greater freedom of

  559
  choice in houses or wider owner-occupation—can be afforded. We say that those luxuries are not a pressing priority. The Government see it differently and put priority on these matters. But we have limited resources and a vast inchoate need, and we do not see the Bill coming anywhere near meeting it. The philosophy behind the Bill, the Conservative view as expressed in it, is superficial and over-optimistic.
  Within its terms of reference, it can be understood. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted portions of pages 1 to 3of the White Paper. It is clear from the White Paper and the Bill that behind the Government's thinking lies the idea that more money must be devoted to housing in Scotland but that, at the same time, the public commitment to housing finance must be progressively reduced after an initial burst. The conception of an initial burst is based no doubt on the optimistic idea that the housing problem can be coped with in this period and will then taper off.
  These apparently irreconcilable objectives can be met only if there is an entirely new financial structure for housing, if it is changed in such a way that more private investment in housing takes place. That is the philosophy behind the Bill. In this situation, who benefits? The ratepayer and the taxpayer. Who pays? The tenant. Again, the Government think that is fair, but we reject it because we think that the mass of the people of Scotland are inadequately housed today and that they will not be adequately housed except under a system which regards housing as a social service.
  While over 100,000 of the people of Scotland are unemployed, while the job opportunities in Scotland are restricted, compared to what they are south of the border, while the people of Scotland enjoy a lower standard of living than their neighbours in the South and while the housing need of Scotland is a scandal in Britain and Western Europe, we believe that the tenant should be protected. Generally, when the tenant is protected, the people of Scotland are protected.
  I should like to deal with one or two outstanding provisions of the White Paper, so as to set the White Paper and the Bill, as amended, alongside each other
  560
  and to consider them in perspective. The philosophy of the White Paper and the Bill can be found in paragraph 3 of the former:
  "Housing need persists, but its form has changed: acute need is no longer general and widespread, but is increasingly concentrated in fewer areas."
  We do not accept that there is no longer acute need. That is one basic difference. If we do not accept that premise, we must reject the conclusion.
  Paragraph 5 says:
  "But at the heart of the problem lie obsolete financial policies, which are no longer either fair or effective. These must be swept away and replaced if enough decent homes are to be built, at prices which Scottish families can afford".
  Talk about the prices that families can afford implies purchase—owner-occupation. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously believe that the idea of owner-occupation for the majority of the people of Scotland is a reality in this generation of housing problems?
  The White Paper goes on:
  "The cost of housing must be more justly distributed between ratepayer, taxpayer and tenant. Unnecessary restrictions and distortions must be removed, and conditions created for as fair a choice as possible in housing".
  I trust that the Government realise that when they use the words
  "as fair a choice as possible in housing"
  they are talking, in Scottish terms, about the choice between getting a house and not getting one. There is no possibility of choosing between one house and another, and the idea that this problem can be solved by this Bill without there being a wholesale attack on the housing problem of Scotland is unrealistic.
  Although the White Paper says that
  "at the heart of the problem…are…obsolete financial policies, which are no longer either fair or effective."
  it must be accepted that the quality of fairness is not mathematical but human; that it is no good talking about fairness in the housing sphere as if it were a question of a mathematical balance or a balance of proportion between ratepayer, taxpayer and tenant.
  The tenant is, of course, a ratepayer. He is often also a taxpayer. The idea that one is simply getting a more just

  561
  distribution between three abstract entities makes no sense at all. The only justice here is that which lies in the question: are the people of Scotland being given decent housing? Unfortunately, that is not the standard of the White Paper or the Bill.
  The thinking of the Government—this is the premise of the White Paper—is that their proposals will lead to the results we all desire. I accept that that is what they believe. But if they start out with the wrong priorities, they will never begin to tackle the problem. In this connection, the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who I regret is not in his place, should accept that there is nothing in the White Paper about the widow to whom he referred. The "fairness" of the White Paper operates in terms of not the widow who is the landlord of a controlled tenancy but in terms of a just distribution between ratepayer, taxpayer and tenant, and it seems extraordianry that the whole of the Bill should have been founded on that premise with no attempt to show on what basis this distribution claims to be just.
  At least the Opposition can say that we endeavoured to control rents when we were in office on the basis of what was fair. What we did has, by and large, proved to be fair, but the Government are seeking to replace that proved and satisfactory method by something which is entirely experimental, untried and untested.
  The White Paper goes on to deal with some criticisms which can be levelled—I accept that there are some—at the existing system. It mentions the figures which the Secretary of State cited about the percentage of housing expenditure met by rents and other payments—paid in rents and by ratepayers and taxpayers respectively. The White Paper goes on in paragraph 9 to deal with the question of relieving the housing problems of the worst areas and states:
  "the rents paid by tenants are not related to their capacity to pay".
  The fact that these two passages appear in the same paragraph suggests that there is some connection between them, and the idea clearly is that in the areas of worst housing need rents are too low and must be raised to a higher level to meet "their capacity to pay".
  562
  This is an extraordinary doctrine for Conservatives, because if hon. Gentlemen opposite are committed to the doctrine of free enterprise it seems odd that they should be imposing on tenants levels according to their capacity to pay, rather than according to the quality of the accommodation they are getting. That would surely be the logic of a proper free enterprise economy, that one pays for the quality of what one gets, and not according to one's capacity to pay. This extraordinary doctrine has also been embodied in the Bill—the idea that tenants should pay not what is fair but according to their capacity to pay.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman has completely ignored the system of rent rebate and rent allowances. But that is what also is includedߞthat the building should receive enough in rent to enable it to be kept in repair and not to fall into disrepair, and that some of that money, where the tenant cannot afford it, should come from elsewhere as a rent allowance or rebate.
  Mr. Murray: I was coming to that. The Secretary of State was thinking ahead. I was about to mention the question of rebates. But before leaving that point, I stress that there is substance in what I am saying. It is not as though the Government were to say—and I could understand this—that an economic rent should be fixed for all rented property and that this should be according to the quality of the property. That is not what was said in the White Paper and there is nothing in the Bill saying that. What the Government have said is what I have read.
  It is true that along with this rather strange doctrine the Government have put forward provisions to moderate the worst impact of the Bill's provisions, and that is right. They have moderated its worst effect by selective help to meet the needs of those most in need. But the answer to that is what I have already stated. If one is to give selective help to those most in need one is giving that type of fairness—maximum fairness—to minimum numbers of people. That must be set against what we believe, by and large, is socially more just, that is, general universal benefits which ensure, by and large, that no one falls through the net.
  If the Under-Secretary is shaking his head because he thinks that I am against

  563
  rebates and rent allowances, I can assure him that I am not. This is an excellent step forward, and I am all in favour of it. But this should be seen against a background of universal benefits. That is the way in which need can best be met. It is quite false to suggest that the situation in Scotland is that we have a small number of people in great need and a great many people who do not need help. On the contrary, we have a great many who have great need and whose need would be best met by universal benefits.
  I point out another failure which lies behind the thinking of the Bill. There is no doubt that the background to the Bill is to save central Government expenditure on housing. The Secretary of State was not terribly candid when he dealt with the question of expenditure. I shall show why shortly. In his opening remarks he more or less quoted the financial effects clause of the Explanatory Memorandum. He pointed out that the estimate for charges on housing for 1971–72, the appropriate charges with the qualifications there stated, would amount to £55 million. That is to say, if the Bill becomes law, the charges for 1971–72 will be £55 million.
  The Secretary of State will remember that I asked a Question on 17th February to discover what the corresponding charges would be for housing if the Bill was not passed. The answer was £55 million. It cannot be maintained that in the first year of operation there is any increase in the amount of expenditure on housing introduced by the Bill. It is true that the various subsidies introduced, if brought into operation, will give an increase in 1975–76 according to the estimate, of up to £70 million to £75 million. I accept that as a probable figure. But this has to be set against a background of inflation, which has already been mentioned.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: At constant prices.
  Mr. Murray: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and that I can disregard. But assuming that these are constant prices and that this represents a real increase in expenditure, the vital point is to see what the expenditure will be thereafter. It is the tapering off after the period
  564
  1975–76 which worries the Opposition. It will not do to say that there will be more public expenditure on housing in 1975–76 of that order without going on to say what the result will be 10 years after that. What will it be then? From all the arithmetic that we have done, it is obvious that the amount of public expenditure on housing will diminish. Therefore, the Secretary of State was very nearly guilty of a confidence trick in his opening remarks.
  In conclusion, what we fear—we have some reason to fear it—is that the net result of the Bill will be to replace the privately built slums of today by the privately built slums of tomorrow. We are concerned not with the theory of encouraging private enterprise house building to meet housing needs but with real bricks and mortar and with the serious housing needs of the Scottish people now—not with the grammar of housing but with the bricks and mortar.
  For those reasons we feel that the Bill should not be given a Third Reading.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: If I ever have occasion to break the law, I shall certainly make a point of asking the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) to defend me, because he has shown tonight that he can present a very bad case with skill, charm, great ability and, perhaps, almost with conviction. But, on the other hand, if he looks at his two main arguments, he will find that, perhaps, they are not so strong as he might wish.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's first main point was that the Bill was concerned with producing confrontation with local authorities, of trying to go against the consensus feeling of local authorities and trying to get them to do something which they do not want to do. If that were true—and I doubt that there are any grounds for saying that it is true—he should, perhaps, discuss rather more carefully with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) some of the events which took place just before he came to the House. We had the most fantastic example of a confrontation and brinkmanship on the part of any Government when the previous Labour Government prevented by law local authorities from paying to their employees wage

  565
  increases which had been freely negotiated with the trade unions and the professional associations. If ever there were a case of confrontation with local authorities against the massive wish of the people of Britain, it was when the Labour Government imposed a wage freeze to prevent employers paying to their employees wages which had been freely negotiated in free bargaining.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman then made a remarkable and astounding statement of Labour policy, if in fact it is. He criticised the Government for bringing in aid of a selective nature to help people in particular circumstances—those in need. He said that Labour stood for general universal benefit. What does that mean? Does he suggest that we should follow the example—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) urges us to do so—of Salt coats and fix all corporation rents at a level which everyone irrespective of income can pay without difficulty? If that is so, then it is not general universal benefit but only benefit for that section of the population fortunate enough to live in municipal housing. He says in effect that all tenants of corporation houses should have a massive subsidy, as in Salt-coats, from all those other people who do not happen to live in local authority housing.
  How can the hon. and learned Gentleman as a Socialist possibly justify a situation in which a private tenant, who is paying under the 1965 Act £2 or £3 or £4 a week rent out of an income of £15 a week, would pay not only his own rent but also a large slice of the rent of every council tenant irrespective of income? If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants general universal benefits, he should propose not low council rents but a housing subsidy for everyone of, say, £2 a week, irrespective of whether they be owner-occupiers, private tenants or local authority tenants. But what he proposes is simply that everyone living in municipal houses should, irrespective of income, receive a subsidy from everyone else. That is utter nonsense. It is certainly not Socialism. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire knows the phrase better, but it is not taking from each according to his ability or from each according to his means. I am sure I have got the saying wrong, but I was
  566
  never a member of the Young Socialists; nor do I intend to be. However, hon. Members opposite know the correct phrase and they must realise that it is not the policy advocated by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  What does the Bill propose, and why should the Opposition be so much against it? First, it proposes that municipal rents should be increased on average by 50p per week each year until the economic rent is reached. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the special problems of Scotland. He might at least have paid tribute to my right hon. Friend who, in what must have been a major battle, although I know nothing of it, managed to persuade his colleagues to have a separate Bill for Scotland, which would not aim our municipal rents at the fair rent proposal, which would inevitably have meant much higher rents, but would instead have to go on the historic costs basis. To achieve a separate principle for Scotland must have involved a great deal of discussion and argument with his colleagues, and tribute should be paid to him for his achievement, which means that municipal rents in Scotland will be at a lower level than rents in England and Wales under the fair rents system.
  Is the proposal for a 50p average increase per annum so outrageous when we remember that the last Government, under the prices and incomes legislation, permitted local authorities and virtually forced the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new towns to have rent increases of 37½p per week at a time when wages were restricted or frozen? It is hypocritical of the Opposition to complain about a 50p per week rise per year when they in their own new towns and through the SSHA brought in substantial rent increases during a wage freeze.
  Mr. McEIhone: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that on 18th November, 1969, the Labour Government put through legislation preventing substantial increases which were being imposed at that time in Tory local authorities, particularly in London. Some of the increases under Tory local authorities were as much as 30s. a week.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Labour Government brought

  567
  in a Measure to lay down that rent increases should be no more than an average of 7s. 6d. a week, in real money, or 37½p in this new decimal business. They proposed 7s. 6d. a week average at the time of a wage freeze. We are proposing a 50p per week average at a time when wages over the last year have gone up by 10 per cent. The big difference is that whereas the Labour Government said that this was the maximum local authorities could charge if they wished, we are saying, "This is what you will pay irrespective of your own views as a local authority". To suggest that this is a violent new scandalous principle is nonsense.
  What was the case in the local authorities which Labour controlled? Did the Labour Government say that the new towns could charge what they liked and run up any deficit they liked? Of course not. The hon. Member knows full well that under the Labour Government's restrictive provisions the new town corporations were forced to increase rents by these substantial amounts. The same situation applied to the SSHA houses. There was no question of the elected representatives deciding what the rents would be.
  I am not condemning the Labour Government for doing this but it is utter hypocrisy to say that it is a scandalous new principle to do it in the case of local authorities when the Labour Government did precisely the same thing to the new towns and the SSHA.
  The section of the Bill dealing with private tenants makes a major change. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) and other hon. Members have complained bitterly about the Bill as it affects private tenants. The hon. Member is an honest man and will admit that there is not one private rented unfurnished house in Scotland which could get a qualification certificate which could not have its rent increased to a fair rent under the 1969 Act. The Act provided that every private unfurnished house could have the rent increased to a fair rent if it had a qualification certificate.
  There are three major effects. The qualification certificate goes. Second, and more important, instead of rents pro-
  568
  ceeding to fair rents in five annual instalments over four years it will happen in three annual instalments over two years. If that was the only change tenants would be worse off, but we cannot disregard the fact that this is being introduced at the same time as the rent allowance. The hon. Member quoted the example of a tenant whose rent was being increased from £50 a year to £250 a year. I do not know whether he was referring to one of the Western Heritable Investment Company houses or a comparable house. But let us compare the position of the tenant under the 1969 Act with his position under the Bill. There will be a substantial difference. Under the 1969 Act the rent would have increased by five instalments over four years from £1 a week to £5 a week. Under the new provisions, however, only a man earning more than £35 a week, with a wife and two children, will have to pay the full £5 a week.
  While the process has been speeded up, the final rent which the average family in Scotland will pay in such circumstances will be less than they would have paid under the 1969 Act. Under that Act it would take four years to reach £5. Under the Bill a man earning £25 a week with a wife earning £2·50 in a part-time job will pay the higher rent in two years. But the Government and the local authority together will pay £2 a week towards the rent. Instead of reaching £5 a week over four years, the rent will increase to £3 over two years and go no further unless there is a general review of rents, in which case more rent allowances will be payable.
  Let us take a ridiculous case. A man earning £12 a week, which is a very low wage, and his wife earning £2·50, bringing in together £14·50 a week, will have £3·50 of the £5 rent paid by the local authority. The hon. Member asked for the retention of the status quo. But the vast majority of tenants, certainly the married couple earning £25 a week, or the married couple with two children earning less than £30 a week, will be much better off under the new proposals. The hon. Gentleman will have to accept that the majority of private tenants, particularly those under £25 a week, will be better off under this Bill than under the previous Labour Act under which rents were increased.

  569
  Another factor is the grant payable by the Government. It has not been denied that the grants to local authorities will be increased, at least in the first few years. We are well aware that in Glasgow, at least for the first two or three years, the amount of cash coming in from Government will increase substantially. If we look long term it is a fact that the rate burden for all people in the community including council tenants will be much less than it was. We have had the calculation from the City Chamberlain of Glasgow that as a result of the new Bill by 1975–76 the amount which Glasgow ratepayers will pay in rates will be 22p in the £less than it would otherwise be, bearing in mind rent deficits, increased rents, and Government grants.
  This does not mean that rates will reduce by about 22p in the pound but it does mean that rates in Glasgow will be about 22p in the pound less than they would otherwise be. This is a substantial sum for someone living in a house, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, with high rateable value.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Could the hon. Gentleman clear up this point? I resent accusations that we have been guilty of misrepresentation. I think he is guilty of misrepresentation on this point. We understand the arithmetic; there could be a saving of 22p in the pound. He does not think that there will be a reduction in rates. Why? Is it not because every big local authority such as Glasgow can find many reasons for spending that additional money? It is most misleading to leave the impression that some spendthrift authority will fritter away the savings to the ratepayers given by a benevolent Government.
  Mr. Taylor: I tried to make it clear that I am not saying, under any circumstances, that Glasgow's rates will come down by 22p in the pound. I cannot say that, because obviously the needs of local authorities increase every year. We can say that our own City Chamberlain has estimated that by 1975–76, were it not for the provisions of the Bill, were it not for the admittedly increased rents and the increased Government grants, the rates would be 22p in the pound higher than they otherwise would be. We can say that either the rates will be lower
  570
  than they would be or that Glasgow will have that extra amount of cash to spend on other things if it wishes.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has the massive scheme of Easter houses in his constituency and he will be aware that this is the kind of cash which local authorities could well spend in improving the amenities and facilities in such areas.
  Mr. McElhone: I do not want this to be a dialogue between Glasgow Members to the exclusion of other hon. Members but I should like to correct the erroneous statements made by the hon. Gentleman. He is not giving us the whole story. If he wants to quote the City Chamberlain about 1975–76 he should also quote statements from Glasgow officials, saying that after 1977–78 any money for house building in Glasgow—and there is a lot to do—will have to come largely from rents because the housing expenditure subsidy will not meet all its requirements. He should also say that because of the rent rebate allowances Glasgow ratepayers will be paying £600,000 in 1975–76. The hon. Gentleman is not being completely honest.
  Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the City Chamberlain's figures he will find that the amount we have to pay as ratepayers for rent allowances has been included in this calculation. It was the entire effect of the Bill.
  Dr. Miller: Would the hon. Gentleman address himself to this point? He is making some play about the possibility of 22p in the pound being the amount by which ratepayers will benefit. Will he equate that with the amount which they will pay in rent? What is the point in the average ratepayer saving, say, £8 or £10 per year in rates if the council rent goes up by £150 a year?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member represents Kelvingrove in which there is a large number of private rented houses. How can he justify the situation when elderly people on fixed incomes living in private rented houses in his constituency see rents being forced up as a result of the action of the previous Government and realise that they will have to pay not only their own rents but also a substantial amount of the rents of council tenants?
  Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman let me look after the people of Kelvingrove and will he now answer my question?
  Mr. Taylor: I am not denying that high income tenants will pay increased rents, as they did under the hon. Gentleman's Government. Under his Government it was 37½p per week. I wonder how he justifies this crazy situation when all private tenants, irrespective of income and rent, have to carry a substantial slice of the rent of all council tenants, regardless of need. No one on this side has said that all council tenants should pay more. A very small proportion will pay no extra rent at all, and this is how it should be.
  The hon. Gentleman and others have rightly said that they disagree with the Bill. Good luck to them. They are entitled to their point of view just as we are to ours.
  What is much more sinister is that some local authorities are saying that irrespective of the views of Parliament and the conclusions that we arrive at by a majority, they intend to defy the law. This is a matter that the previous Government faced. They faced it over their prices and incomes legislation when they prevented local authorities paying wage increases to their employees which they had agreed with union representatives. At that time although my party attacked the Government for their prices and incomes policy and objected to the wage freeze in the form in which it was implemented, no hon. Member suggested that local authorities should be encouraged to defy the law. We sympathised with the local authorities, and we opposed the legislation strongly. But what is now suggested is going much further. That is why I was delighted in Committee when the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said in a statesmanlike speech that, while he opposed the Bill bitterly, he would not encourage local authorities to defy the law.
  If this happens, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the position of ratepayers of all sorts who may be deprived of grants and who will find themselves paying more in rates than they would have otherwise simply because of the actions of these local authorities. We have to think of everyone. It is important that ratepayers who may suffer
  572
  financial loss as a consequence of irresponsible action by local authorities should be protected.
  This Bill, like any other, has good and bad parts. But I believe that at the end of the day it represents the Conservative philosophy of giving help and more help to people in need and not giving general and universal benefits to a limited category of persons.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) is happy. I wonder what he thinks about the situation of a local authority in which 80 or 85 per cent. of the electors reside in local authority houses. If the elected council in such an area decides over the years that rents should not increase but should be kept at a level where they cover only 20 per cent. of the total cost of housing so that the burden on all the other ratepayers—perhaps the 15 per cent. of residents—is increased substantially, is it right that the Government should sit back and do nothing? This cannot be right, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept. If he looks at the document in the possession of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) dealing with the rating review in Scotland, he will see that in many burghs 80 per cent. of houses are municipally owned. This creates a crazy anomaly.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that if 80 per cent. of houses are owned by local authorities, 80 per cent, of the burden is also met by the tenants as ratepayers. It is not met by the other 20 per cent.
  Mr. Taylor: But the 20 per cent. do not get the advantage of subsidised rents. The hon. Gentleman apparently feels that local authorities should be free to fix rents. However, Labour Governments have been consistently prepared to force up rents in new towns and those of SSHA houses. But they will not do the same for council tenants.
  There has been injustice and inequality. If we can get justice and equality and provide help for those who need it, we shall be taking a great step forward.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. Gourlay: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) seemed to

  573
  have difficulty with a Socialist quotation. It runs:
  "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
  Perhaps he is more familiar with the quotation,
  "To him that hath shall be given. From him that hath nothing it shall be taken away"
  That appears to be the philosophy behind this Bill, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman supports it and puts his seat in peril.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left us. His speech indicated that he still lives in airy-fairy land, with little appreciation of the essential differences between the provision of local authority housing in England and that of council housing in Scotland and of the proportion of the Scottish stock of housing owned by local authorities. In Scotland 80 per cent. of tenants live in council houses. Consequently the 35 per cent. contribution to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as being made by Scottish ratepayers to housing expenditure in Scotland cannot properly be compared with the 7 per cent. contribution made by English ratepayers.
  The Secretary of State's claim to increase housing expenditure contradicts his statement in the Scottish Grand Committee in July, 1971, when he said:
  "…had the present system of subsidies continued, it would have escalated into enormous figures which I believe no Government, of any colour, could have continued to bear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 22nd July 1971; c. 17.]
  That is the basic philosophy behind this Bill, no matter what the right hon. Gentleman may have said tonight in attempting to justify it.
  My collagues and I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill, which represents an unwarranted, unnecessary and vicious attack upon the living standards of council house tenants in Scotland. The Bill has returned to this House after a lengthy Committee stage almost as big a monster as that which left us some months ago.
  The Government's decision to transfer subsidies from bricks and mortar to people is based on their policy of cutting back on the cost of housing subsidies. To this extent they will transfer the subsidies from bricks and mortar to the
  574
  pockets of surtax payers who will receive a substantial bounty as a result of this year's Budget. That is the effect of the Bill. At the same time, municipal tenants will be faced with extortionate increases in rent to the tune of nearly £50 million by the passing of the Bill.
  In my opinion, no Bill has ever been introduced at such an inopportune moment. At this very period, when the Government supposedly are trying, however ineptly, to arrest inflation, they are, by putting this Bill on the Statute Book, adding at a stroke even more fuel to the fires of inflation. Higher rents undoubtedly and justifiably will spark off another round of wage applications, while the Government continually remind everyone that wage applications are a contributory factor to inflation.
  The old Tory dogma of setting the people free is now one of the lame duck policies of this Government. Yesterday, we debated Clause 29 which instructs local authorities by which dates and by how much rents will have to be increased because the men at St. Andrew's house apparently know best.
  It was the Under-Secretary who said that the dates should not be altered, as we on this side suggested, because the interests of the ratepayers had to be safeguarded. However, we have heard tonight that 80 per cent. of the ratepayers in Scotland are also council tenants, so more money will be extracted from them as tenants than ratepayers, whereas the owner-occupiers, whom the hon. Gentleman is trying to safeguard, will receive substantial Government subsidies and will benefit at the expense of council tenants.
  In answer to a Question on 23rd May of this year, it was indicated that the subsidies to owner-occupiers have grown substantially over the last ten years. In 1962–63 the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief on the mortgages of owner-occupiers was £75 million, covering about 3·9 million people. The provisional estimate for this year, 1971–72, of the subsidy to owner-occupiers is now the colossal sum of £340 million, covering 5 million people. This form of subsidy will continue to rise. We approve of the general principle of tax relief on mortgages, especially for those of modest incomes who wish to own their own

  575
  house, but certainly not those who buy mansions costing £35,000 to £40,000, from which substantial tax relief is enjoyed as a result.
  Therefore, it is wholly inequitable to approve the Bill which will reduce subsidies to local authorities and bring about appalling rent increases, when, at the same time, Government subsidies to other ratepayers, and owner-occupiers in particular, will continue to increase. This illustrates again the class bias of the Government.
  The Government's addiction to means-testing is further exemplified in the Schedules to the Bill. There are no fewer than 15 pages of small print which the Government claim as being a panacea for dealing with high rents.
  The rent rebate and allowance scheme which is set out in these Schedules is so complicated that few tenants will ever know their proper entitlement. It will require a new army of local government officers to implement them. This is the Government who are always trying to cut down the number of civil servants and local government servants. It is estimated in some quarters that rents will eventually rise so high under the Bill that nearly 95 per cent. of council tenants will require a rebate, thus causing a considerable amount of clerical work in various local authority offices.
  There can be no merit in any rent rebate scheme which of necessity is introduced to cover such a large proportion of council tenants. The provision in the Bill to have regard to the income of another person in the household when his income is higher than that of the tenant, for the purpose of calculating a rent rebate, is nauseating. It has caused a tremendous amount of resentment amongst many of the ordinary people of this country. It is reminiscent of the old means test system of the 1930s which was responsible for the break-up of so many families.
  Yesterday the Minister failed to tell the House how the local authorities were to ascertain that the income of another person living in the house was higher than that of the tenant. As he indicated to the House, the question was not to be put on the application form for a rent rebate. How, therefore, is the local authority to
  576
  know that there is someone in the house who has a larger income than the tenant? Are the Government to employ an army of snoopers, or are the other tenants in local authority houses to be encouraged to become common informers? The Minister has so far refused to indicate how a local authority will get this information. In the light of no information forthcoming from the Minister, we can only assume that there will be some form of snooping or common informing taking place.
  So much do the Government trust the local authorities that they are reinforcing the default powers contained in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, and the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966, by further Big Brother powers in Clause 71 which give the Secretary of State virtually dictator powers over local authorities. As I understand Clause 71, there is virtually nothing the Secretary of State cannot do in compelling local authorities to enforce the provisions of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, or taking over all the powers of the local authorities, particularly relating to housing.
  The Government have not yet indicated—after the Secretary of State's speech this evening we know even less than possibly we did after the Under-Secretary of State spoke in Committee—what will happen or how the Secretary of State proposes to deal with local authorities which have already stated they are not prepared to operate the Act. Since the Government require local authorities to raise rents before the Bill becomes law, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been encouraging local authorities to raise rents now. Surely it is incumbent upon a Secretary of State to state what plans he has to deal with local authorities which have declared their intentions prior to this time. After all, it is the Government who are creating the confrontation with the local authorities, not the local authorities themselves. It is the Government's policies and the Bill which are forcing members of local authorities to take a stand, encouraged by the electors of Scotland who returned them in full measure at the municipal elections.
  The doctrinaire Tory higher-rent housing policy, which is enshrined in the Bill,

  577
  will do little to reduce the agony and misery of those awaiting council houses. Future housing prospects for the Scottish people will be very bleak indeed so long as this Measure remains an Act of Parliament. Opposition to the Bill by right hon. and hon Members on this side of the House has been welcomed all over the country and its ultimate repeal, which I hope will not be long delayed with a change of Government, will bring relief to many people in Scotland.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: When the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) was opening for the Opposition he spoke of what he called a confidence trick played by my right hon. Friend in promoting the Bill. For my part, the gigantic confidence trick in relation to the Bill was played by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and their colleagues throughout the country during the last municipal elections. A gigantic confidence trick indeed was played on the people of Scotland when they were told that the Bill was an evil, wicked thing. They were told that it was merely to raise rents; that it was some kind of landlord's charter. This was and is a total travesty of the truth about the Bill.
  I believe the Bill will do more than any other single series of Measures ever to improve the housing situation in Scotland. It was noticeable that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and their colleagues on councils throughout the country during the municipal elections made little mention of the extra help the Bill will bring to tenants generally. We heard little or nothing, for example, about slum clearance policies, which we discussed so much in Committee, and we heard little or nothing about a national standard rent rebate scheme or about the rent allowances to be given for the first time ever under the Bill.
  It is no use the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) shaking his head. This is the first time a standard rent rebate scheme and rent allowances for private tenants have been introduced. The hon. Gentleman would have more justification for shaking his head if he had done something when he was in Government. He did not; he ignored it.
  Mr. Buchan: I was shaking my head at another comment the hon. Gentleman made; namely, that no discussion took place by those of us on this side during the municipal elections on the question of the rebates of one kind or another. On the contrary, a great deal of discussion took place, and we exposed this game completely. It was because the truth was made known that the Government lost the local elections.
  Mr. Sproat: That is a rather over-simple view. If the hon. Gentleman had seen the election manifestoes produced for example, in Aberdeen, he would not say that. The issue flung time and time again at the electorate was that the result of the Bill was simply that rents would rise. There was no mention of the rebates, of the rent allowances, and of the subsidies for slum clearance. That is why it was unfair. That is why I said that it was a gigantic hoax and a deceit of the people of Scotland which they will find out. When they find out they will turn and tear the hon. Gentleman opposite apart.
  Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair to my hon. Friends and myself. All during the municipal elections I explained to my people that the Government were giving a high cost subsidy to benefit the small town of Lauder, which has 642 council houses, whereas Glasgow, with a population of 1 million and I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of council houses, would get nothing. The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair. The Government are doing a good job for Lauder but not for those whom I represent.
  Mr. Sproat: If I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman did not even know in Committee where Lauder was, whereas I was brought up in the vicinity of Lauder and know it very well.
  If I may admit one failing about the Bill it is that the Government did not put it over sufficiently well to the people of Scotland, perhaps because we were so convinced of its virtues that we thought that others would be so obviously convinced. Our task from now on must be to ensure that the Bill's justice and virtues are put over. I hope that today's debate will do something to contribute to that.
  Dr. Miller: If the Bill has all the magnificence and beneficence that the hon. Gentleman says that his Government want it to have, why do they have to bring in a Bill like this? Why not make available to local authorities more money for building houses and let local authorities get on with the job? They know how to get on with the job. The Government do not have to tell them.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman says that local authorities know how to get on with the job. If they did, Scotland would not have the scandalous and disgraceful housing situation that now exists.
  I sometimes find that the sense of tedium which is induced by listening to hon. Members opposite—a feeling with which we become all too familiar in Committee—is overcome by a sense of incredulity. For example, earlier today the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), normally a very fair man, said, if I understood him correctly, that this was the most vindictive Bill put through the House this century.
  That was an incredible description of the Bill. How can it be a vindictive Bill when, for example, we are giving for the first time a standard rent rebate scheme to those in need? How is it vindictive to give rent allowances—for the first time ever—to tenants in unfurnished private rented accommodation? How can it be vindictive to give for the first time, as I hope, rent allowances to tenants living in furnished accommodation?
  How can it be vindictive to give such generous slum clearance subsidies? This seems to me to show the atmosphere of prejudice and ignorance in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are determined to look at the Bill. Even the hon. and learned Member for Leith can find only three tiny items to admire in the Bill. Half the trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are determined to look only at what is worst in the Bill and see that as something evil. It is because there has been this old-fashioned, reactionary attitude for so long, not only among hon. Gentlemen opposite but in too many town councils, that we have such a disgraceful housing situation in Scotland.
  Mr. Strang: The Government are creating the situation that if a man gets an increase in wages he may be worse off because of all these means-tested
  580
  benefits. How can the Conservative Party, which spoke about the need to provide incentives and to cut taxes, including surtax, say that it is fair to put workpeople into that poverty trap, and at the same time cut taxes for the rich?
  Mr. Sproat: I do not believe that we are cutting taxes for the rich. We are cutting taxes for everybody. I shall come to the question of council tenants. Far from the Bill being vindictive, the essential aspect of it is its fairness, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and picked up by the hon. and learned Member for Leith. The Bill sets out to remedy certain basic injustices which I should have thought everyone would agree were injustices. It is a fair Bill because it recognises that it is unjust to subsidise council tenants without at the same time subsidising private tenants who need it.
  Mr. Dempsey: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Sproat: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear". This has been a scandal for a long time. The latest figures showed that the average income for the head of the family in council houses was £1,400 a year, while the figure for those in private rented accommodation was only £1,100. People in private accommodation are far worse off than those in council houses. That is not disputed.
  Mr. Buchan: Private tenants?
  Mr. Sproat: Certainly. They are worse off in private accommodation, and it is unjust to subsidise those who are better off rather than those who are worse off. For the first time we are levelling out the difference. We are not being over-generous to one side. We are being equally fair to both sides.
  Mr. John Smith: If the objective is to be equally fair to both sides, why is a means test proposed for subsidies to council house tenants and yet no such qualification is to be applied to the subsidy given to owner-occupiers who may claim an indirect but none the less just as real subsidy for a mortgage of up to £20,000 involving the loss of hundreds, indeed thousands, of pounds worth of taxpayers' money? If equity is important, why does

  581
  it not apply to the council tenant and to the private owner-occupier?
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is making a typical and common Labour Party fallacy by calling it a means test. Income tax is a means test. It is stupid to use this pejorative term with its old-fashioned connotation.
  The Bill is fair because it remedies certain injustices. One injustice which it removes is that which arises from the treatment of council tenants who are better off than people in private accommodation. Secondly, it recognises for the first time in a statutory way that there are gross divergences between the incomes of different council house tenants and, therefore, there ought to be a national rent rebate scheme. In certain places one could have an old-age pensioner living alone on an income of £500 a year getting the same subsidy as a family with a combined income of £2,000 or £3,000 living in a council house. That is obviously a gross injustice. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept that they are remedying that.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: The hon. Member mentions pensioners and inequality. Does he accept that an old-age pensioner whose son or daughter leaves home is required to pay the rebated rent as if the son or daughter were still living there? Is that a major act of social justice? That is what the Bill does.
  Mr. Sproat: First, the key word that the hon. Gentleman uses is "rebated". If they do not have an income which can pay the rent, they will get a rebate or a rent allowance. We recognise—I know that the Minister now recognises—that it would be unfair to distinguish between private tenants in furnished and in unfurnished accommodation. This is another unfairness which we have discussed and which my hon. Friend has agreed in principle to iron out. I am delighted, and I congratulate him on his flexible approach to this difficult subject.
  When I raised this matter on Second Reading, I thought I detected a sceptical, although sympathetic, attitude by my hon. Friend towards the idea that he would be able to do anything about it. He has admitted the force of the arguments and is now going to do something: This typifies the Government's generous and open-
  582
  minded attitude, which they have shown throughout these discussions.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman not rather have concrete action than a promise that something might be done if the scheme can be worked out? Why did he vote against Clauses in Committee and the House which prevented positive action being written into the Bill?
  Mr. Sproat: I can give a very simple answer. It is because I believe that my hon. Friend's giving consideration is far more likely to turn out a good and workable scheme than hon. Members opposite rushing something into the Bill in order to embarrass him. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend will work out a scheme which will satisfy us all.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that on Third Reading we are not allowed to talk about matters which are not in the Bill but only about those that are? Is it not true that there is no mention of furnished dwellings in this respect in the Bill? I make this point more than just as a matter of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is true that some latitude has been allowed for a considerable time in this debate. The hon. Gentleman is right. Only that which is in the Bill should be discussed, but passing references are allowed to other matters, and it is sometimes difficult to draw the line.
  Mr. Sproat: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will pass from that subject.
  But there is one further aspect in which the Bill irons out an unfairness. While we have been rightly preoccupied with giving a fair deal to the tenants, we should be equally certain of giving a fair deal to landlords. [An Hon. Member: "The old Tory philosophy."] It may be, and it is certainly the right philosophy to give justice to all, whoever they are.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.Ross) turned with scorn, if I did not misconstrue his rather synthetic emotion, on my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) when he instanced the case of an old-age pensioner who had been done out of a perfectly

  583
  legitimate hope of income. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are many such in Aberdeen as well as in Angus. Only last week I discussed the case of a lady who had come to my constituency office in Holborn Street in Aberdeen. The only accommodation that she could get was a tenement in which there were four flats. She lived in one and rented out the others for 26p per week each. How could she possibly live off that? She told me that a lavatory in one of the flats went wrong and it cost her a year's rent to put it right. It is to put right this situation that we have introduced these provisions.
  If people are not given a fair rent they will not have the money to plough back into the accommodation, and we shall continue to see a decline in Scotland's housing stock. Thus, from the individual's point of view and that of society this is a just Measure.
  Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend is making a fair point. It was illustrated with great clarity at the time of the storm damage in Glasgow when, because of neglect due to shortage of money, people lost their lives. It is, therefore, a question not just of maintaining standards but of safety, and if people do not have a fair return from property neither standards nor safety can be maintained.
  Mr. Sproat: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making that point.
  Were I an English hon. Member I would support the Bill without hesitation. Being a Scottish hon. Member I support it doubly because it cannot be too frequently emphasised that we in Scotland have the worst slums in the United Kingdom, the worst overcrowding, the worst and most ludicrous rents and the worst level of owner-occupancy.
  Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Leith says about it being a pipe dream to expect there to be more owner-occupancy in Scotland, considering that England and Wales have twice as many owner-occupied houses as we have, if they can do it we can do it, and that must be one of the aims of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said it was a disgrace and a scandal that so
  584
  much of Scotland's housing was in such a terrible condition. He is right, and it is precisely because it is a disgrace and because the present system has led to this situation that it is no longer enough to tinker with the problem here and there, as the right hon. Member for kilmarnock and the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) did when in office, sometimes being successful and sometimes not. We need a deep and radical change. That is what this Measure supplies and why I support it absolutely.
  9.53 p.m.
  Mr. Doig: We have just listened to two astonishing speeches from the benches opposite. First, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) argued that the only people who should benefit from these provisions were those who paid for them. In other words, in his view rebates to council tenants should be paid for by those tenants. He thinks that it is unfair for other ratepayers to pay any share of them.
  That is a remarkable argument because extended nationally it would mean that only those with children at school would pay education rates and only those who had contributed to the pension would receive an old-age pension of any description. What a nonsensical argument.
  Then the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made the remarkable proposition that my hon. Friends had misled the electorate at the last local elections by suggesting that this Measure was intended to increase the rents of council houses. In fact, that is its exact purpose. How anyone could have sat through the Committee stage of this Bill without realising that is beyond me.
  Mr. Sproat: I said that it had been put across to the general public that that was the sole aim of the Bill and that hon. Gentlemen opposite had not mentioned the slum clearance subsidies, rent rebates and so on.
  Mr. Doig: Surely it is quite obvious that any misleading was done by the paid officials of the Conservative Party who wrote untrue letters about this Bill to the Press on the eve of an election.
  No one can dispute that the main purpose of the Bill is to raise the rents of council tenants and, secondly, to raise

  585
  the rents of the tenants of private pro perty. If anyone thinks that that is not the Bill's main purpose, I should like them to tell me what it is. It is certainly the main purpose that we have gathered in Committee.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) said that there were three good points to the Bill, one of which was the rebate scheme. But I consider that the rebate scheme is one of the Bill's worst points because it will mean that by the time that we have reached the end of the transitional period, tenants, whether tenants of council houses or of existing privately owned houses, will be paying more even if they are paying the minimum rebated rent—apart from the few odd exceptions. Even with maximum rebate they will be paying more than they are now paying. Therefore, it is completely beyond me how this scheme can be considered a good one.
  On Second Reading and in Committee—and now on Third Reading—I have pointed out that this is the only rebate scheme of which I know which has a principle whereby a person qualifies for a rebate and can then have his rebated rent increased without any increase in the rental. The unfortunate thing about this is that it is against all the advice of the housing experts who have written books and pamphlets and who have held inquiries and reported on this matter. This principle is a new one and is against all rebate schemes that I know, certainly my local authority's scheme. Yet local authorities such as mine and Glasgow's will have to adopt this rebate scheme and scrap theirs. It will be necessary for them to operate this one. I consider it to be one of the worst features of the Bill.
  It has been said that the powers given in the Bill for the largest increase in rents and the largest resulting rents at the end of the transitional period that have ever been charged in Scotland would be unfair to ratepayers other than council tenants. Let us consider that point. I am returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Cathcart. It has been accepted by every Government and by every local authority in Scotland over the years that
  586
  it was a good thing to provide families with decent accommodation, and such a good thing that every Government, prior to the present Government, agreed to give subsidies to provide decent housing. It was also agreed by local authorities that they equally should contribute something towards this end. All previous Governments and local authorities accepted this on the basis that the community would benefit because of savings in other directions and the impact on people's health if good housing were provided.
  With previous housing Bills the number of houses that had been built in the past and the number of houses that were likely to be built as a result of a new Bill has always been a feature. But we have heard nothing about this on this Bill. That is because it is patently obvious, even to the Government, that it will result in fewer houses being built to rent than have been built to rent in the past. That is why we hear nothing about targets and how many houses will be provided. The Government know that the Bill will eventually produce not more but fewer houses to rent. We are also told about the tenants of privately owned properties which cannot be repaired because the rents are too low. The Government quote a rent of £16 and are trying to tell us that the Bill will make these tenants better off. If their rent is £16 now to what level will that rent rise? For instance, in my constituency one tenant has had a fair rent proposed by the rent officer which involves a 1,200 per cent. increase.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: Under a Labour Act.
  Mr. Doig: The rent officers are now employed by the present Government and are carrying out the present Government's policy.
  Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures?
  Mr. Doig: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has interrupted on several occasions and it time that someone else had an opportunity to speak.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Doig: The only excuse that has been put forward by the Government for allowing rents of old, privately owned houses to be increased substantially is that the necessary repairs cannot be done unless these increases are made. Yet when we pressed in Committee for the Government to make it a condition of allowing these increases in rent that landlords should have to do the necessary repairs or bring these houses up to the accepted tolerable standard, the Government refused to accept the proposition. So it is just eyewash that the reason for the increase is to enable repairs to be carried out. It is the same kind of eyewash that we got on the Rent Act, 1957, from the Tory Government, who gave as an excuse for allowing considerable increases in rent that it would make the provision of new accommodation by private owners for rent a feasible proposition.
  I asked a long time afterwards how many ordinary houses had been built as a result of that Act. The answer was one solitary house in the four cities of Scotland. That is how successful it was. The only other new houses built for rent as a result of the Act were luxury houses at exorbitant rents certainly not intended for working people. The same result will come from this Bill. It will substantially increase rents; it will get no more repairs done; at the end of the day no more houses will be built under it. It will be as big a flop as the 1957 Act and the next Labour Goverenment will have to clear the mess up. These rent increases will be imposed whether repairs are carried out or not, and as long as there is such a situation there is no incentive to owners of these properties to bring them up to a tolerable standard.
  588
  The Under-Secretary of State argued that it was ridiculous to expect any owner of private property to do repairs on a rent of £16 a year. I have pointed out time and again that local authorities have been doing just that for a considerable number of years. When I asked him for the figures earlier, I did not get them, so I went out to find out for myself. While I was out of the Chamber, apparently he gave an answer, stating £34 per house as the cost of repairs to local authorities in Scotland—last year, presumably. I do not know where he got that figure because the figures given by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants do not come anywhere near it. The Institute's figures show an average for the cities of £27·9, for the large burghs of £20·16, and an even smaller sum for the small burghs. The hon. Gentleman's figure was a bit out.
  I give a few examples, since the hon. Gentleman claims that it is impossible to keep a house in good repair on £16 a year. Dundee managed to do it on £17·99; Arbroath, represented by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), did it on £14·82; Ayr, represented by the Under-Secretary of State, did it on £12·99; Falkirk did it on £14·25; Greenock did it on £1643; Perth did it for £12·39. Does anyone suggest that any of these local authorities are not keeping their houses in a good state of repair?
  Mr.Galbraith rose—
  Mr. Doig: I have already said that I will not give way again. It is unfair to others who want to speak.
  Let us consider the state of the corporation houses in each of these places, comparing them with the accommodation owned by private owners and factored by private factors. Does anyone deny that the corporation houses are far better repaired and maintained? My experience over many years is that councils are much better at carrying out repairs and doing what is necessary than is any private factor. So long as we allow increases in rent to private factors without strings attached—and factors are, after all, out to make a profit—this situation will continue. We know that the private factors contributed very generously to the Tory Party and perhaps this Bill is their pay off.

  589
  The idea that the Bill is a godsend to local authorities is moonshine. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it away when he told us how much the Bill would save the country as a whole—£200 million. The idea that at the end of the day the local authorities and the ratepayers will be better off is moonshine. The people who will be better off are the owners of the private tenemented property who will be allowed to get increases without doing any repairs. The Exchequer will be better off. Those who will not be better off are the council tenants, the private tenants, the local authorities and the ratepayers.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman has made what is perhaps an understandable misunderstanding of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. My right hon. Friend said that this legislation would lead not to a diminution in expenditure by the central Government but to a substantial increase, although a less substantial increase than would have been expected to occur under previous provisions. There was no reduction at all—very much the reverse.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: The Third Reading of a Bill such as this is often like the last rehearsal of a play. All the arguments have been rehearsed, and I imagine that my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State knows them all in his sleep. Very few of the arguments and very few of the attitudes have changed.
  To a certain extent I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). I think people get the kind of housing they are prepared to pay for. That is a rather unpopular view among hon. Members opposite. To the Opposition, housing is very much a sacred cow, but like the only other sacred cow of which I know, which lives in India, it is in poor condition. If we go in for cheap housing, we shall only get cheap houses, and we have an abundance of cheap houses at the moment. To listen to some speeches one would gain the impression that our housing is first rate, but it is not.
  Mr. Baxter rose—
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I will not give way because many hon. Members wish to speak.
  590
  There must be a great improvement in the standards of housing. I respect the general attitude of the Labour Party towards the way the Bill treats tenants. It has a natural and justified concern, to a certain extent, but I hope hon. Members opposite will accept that there is good reason for the Bill. There is a lot more to it than the introduction of further air rent structures and general rent rebate schemes, as well as subsidies, which everyone tends to overlook completely. We need a massive redirection of our efforts in housing if our people are to have decent homes in the places where they want them, and the Bill is a brave effort to provide that redirection.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Campbell: Great play has been made, particularly by Conservative Members here and in the country, attacking our campaign against the Bill which they said misrepresented its intentions.
  It is difficult to know what to say in addressing constituents on this subject. First, one must tell them that all the local authority and SSHA tenants will have rent increases this year, next year and so on until the housing revenue account is all square. Through the good offices of Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants it is easy to work out approximately what the tenants' rents will be. In Dumbarton people can discover, for example, that their rents will go up to £3·50 or £4 a week.
  One could also tell them that there will be a rent rebate. But they are not concerned about this. They know that they are faced with an increased rent and they are not concerned with working out whether they earn £25 per week or whether they have ten children. They believe that the increased rent is what they must aim for and they can only see the prospect of having to pay it.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) mentioned that there were good things in the Bill as well as bad things. But one of its worst aspects relates to the allocation of housing subsidies. Local authorities have entered into these freely with successive Governments and the provisions in the Bill deserve the name awarded to them by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell

  591
  (Mr. Lawson) who said in Committee that it was the "welshing" Clause. This is the black mark in the Bill because this Government are welshing on their commitments to the local authorities.
  Any new housing programme attracted by the excellent subsidies paid under the 1969 Act will have to be financed by local authority tenants with perhaps a small contribution from the ratepayers. The SSHA tenants will contribute in a different way. The Secretary of State said that the subsidy would be paid for five to ten years, but this depends upon the base line. There is a residual period of phasing out over the years. In many cases this period should be completely ignored and the Bill should be treated on the basis of how it will operate after the subsidies have been phased out.
  This is quite different from the days of the Wheatley Act, which laid upon the community as a whole the idea that housing was a social concern with the costs borne by the general body of ratepayers. Now this is being changed.
  We can tell the private tenant that the Government are introducing a rent allowance, which is a good thing. I am sure that if the Labour Party had been returned and we were introducing a housing Act my right hon. Friend would be including the same sort of thing. It was something we missed before, and I am sure we would have picked it up. The private tenant receives this allowance only when he moves from rent control to rent regulation, after a dramatic increase in rent.
  Yesterday we discussed the letter which should be sent to private tenants, and there were some figures banded about dealing with the effect of the rent assessment committees.
  The Under-Secretary gave some figures which he said he had received at the last moment. He said that in 1971 of the rents which went before the assessment tribunal 41 per cent. were reduced, 15 per cent. were not altered and 34 per cent.
  592
  were increased. I have some figures from a survey dealing with 1st April to 10th November, 1971. From this survey it will be seen that 17 per cent. of the rents were reduced, 16 per cent. were not changed and 67 per cent. were increased. That was over a period of eight months, but no doubt another four months would not change the figures to bring them anywhere near those quoted by the Under-secretary.
  The only change in the Bill in Committee was brought about through an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) which sought to give the subsidy which should have been given to places like Helens burgh and other small towns but which, because the principle of the Bill was that the housing revenue account was to go into balance, would have meant that they would have been in surplus. The Under-Secretary was prepared to accept this and to alter that part of the Bill. There is only one local authority as far as I can find out which is losing out by the overspill agreement and that is Dunbartonshire. When the Bill goes to another place perhaps this can be dealt with.
  This is a clever Bill. Because of the transitional arrangements its effects will not be felt for a long time. The effects of the rate reductions are already being seen as certain local authorities produce figures, assuming that rent increases are taking place and that they will be able to make rate reductions. The full effect of the Bill has not yet been felt. When the subsidy has phased out and the housing revenue accounts have been balanced, the difference will really impinge on the local authority and SSHA tenant.
  This Bill should have added to the title the phrase "Part 1"because there is no doubt that Part II will be along in 1975–6 when we have reached the state in which England is now. We shall move on to fair rents and then to surplus in the housing expenditure account. This will mean higher rents, and this will really shock the people of Scotland.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Galbraith: Right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to hear that, in a way, I am sorry that the Bill has reached this stage. For nearly 24 years I have been able to make the same speech deploring the housing situation in Scotland. After this, I shall not be able to do that. I shall have to think of a new one.
  I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) is no longer with us. He seemed to be satisfied with what he called consensus politics with regard to housing. I made a few quick calculations and discovered that in the last 26 years the Socialist Party has been in power for 11 and the Conservative Party for 15. Between us, working the so-called consensus method of dealing with housing, we have made a pretty poor job. We have not succeeded, and it has become clear from every speech that we have heard from the benches opposite that housing in Scotland is in a disgraceful state. However, hon. Members opposite did nothing in their 11 years to alter that position. We are now intent on altering it and improving it.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman talked awful nonsense when he spoke about a breach of faith. It is astonishing to hear that coming from a member of the Labour Party. It is impossible to make any arrangement with regard to one's private or business affairs with any reliance that it will last from one Chancellor of the Exchequer to the next when the Labour Party is in power. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are the last people to talk about a breach of faith with local authorities. However, the faith that we want to keep is not with the local authorities. It is with ordinary people, so that they will be treated fairly and with justice.
  I was also horrified to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman—who I am sure has ambitions to become a Law Officer, though they will not be fulfilled—talking about a "confrontation". He almost encouraged people to go in for "demos" and other types of anti-democratic behaviour. I hope that we shall not hear the same sort of remark from the right
  594
  hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am sure that he believes in the sovereignty of Parliament. He was in the House when one of his right hon. Friends said "We are the masters now." By God, we on this side are the masters now, and that is why we have this Bill.
  It is a Bill which introduces fairness. It ends the privilege of people who happen to be fortunate enough to live in council houses. It introduces uniformity, which is what the Labour Party likes, so that there can be movement of labour to where industry is. It is also a Bill which should appeal to a Socialist Party, because those who have the ability to pay will pay and those who need help will get it, whether they live in council houses or in private houses.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the guts to introduce the Bill. I wish it well in its further stages.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: We were all delighted with the rumbustious speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). He said that he had been making it for 24 years. May I remind him that his father made it before him and, if anything, did it rather better? In those days, whenever our proceedings got at all dull, we used to say "Let us make Tommy Galbraith lose his temper." It was always very easy.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke awful nonsense. He said that we had done nothing. However, it was the hon. Gentleman who was getting on to us the other day for building far too many houses. We built far more houses—
  Mr. Brace-Gardyne: In the wrong places.
  Mr. Ross: That may be the opinion of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), but I do not agree. However, I remind the hon. Member for Hillhead that the nadir in respect of house building was reached in 1963. Will he reveal to the House who was in charge of Scottish house building at that time? The hon. Member for Hillhead piloted through the 1962 Act. Thereafter, house building fell to a rate far lower than it had ever sunk before.
  The hon. Member for Hillhead then said what nonsense it was to talk about

  595
  a breach of faith. This is one of the most serious aspects of the Bill. It is probably the one factor to have troubled local authorities more than any other and created such a measure of uncertainty about their financial position. I am glad that at least the hon. Member for South Angus put the record straight. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned about the growth of the Government's financial liabilities under past and prospective building. Inevitably, the financial responsibility of the Government increases as they build more houses. Housing subsidies normally run at the same rate for 60 years. Because of that, there is a natural accumulation. It was because the Government saw in the middle of this decade a bill that they were not prepared to support that they decided to change the formula. What they did was what they usually do: they started with the answer and then worked out a formula to achieve that answer. They had to do something about the built-up liability over the past 20, 30 or 40 years with every passing Act of Parliament.
  It was interesting that the Secretary of State did not mention the credit, if there was any credit to be taken, for the residual subsidy. Where do the Government take the present liability about all the pledges and promises that they have given about subsidies? Remember that every time a Government introduce a new subsidy that subsidy is only for housing that will be built. But they carried on the liability of the last Government. That has always been considered sacrosanct as a contractual responsibility upon which local authorities finance their houses. One can change the subsidy; that has been done. That subsidy has been whittled away over a few years but the liability of the local authority, which borrowed the money over 60 years, continues and that has to be met. The Government have welshed from their responsibility.
  It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Hillhead to talk about breach of faith. I will quote him. What is being done in the Bill was foreshadowed in 1962 when the Government took power to reduce the subsidies. The hon. Gentleman said that it was usual to do it for 60 years. But they gave notice to local authorities
  596
  that they might reduce the subsidies after 10 years. Then he said:
  "Although this new power is, as I fully admit, a radical departure from past practice, and is, indeed, without direct precedent, it may well be suggested that it does not go far enough."
  Those were the thoughts of his hon. Friends. He went on:
  "No power is being sought to touch the £14 million or so already being paid out annually to local authorities, of which £3 million is payable in respect of the cheap pre-war houses…The earlier subsidy Acts provided quite categorically, however, that contributions are to be made at the specified rate for 40 or 60 years, so that the Government would be exposing themselves to a charge of breaking faith if they invited Parliament to make retrospective changes."—[Official Report, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th March, 1962, col. 798.]
  This is a man who talks about breach of faith. That is nonsense. To do it would be a breach of faith. That is the first thing. I hope that we shall hear no more about that, especially from the hon. Member for Hillhead.
  One sure thing as a result of the residual subsidy is that those who managed to get in before 1st December and have a large house building programme will be better off in the overlapping period. But, with the residual subsidy, that drops away. So there may be a temptation for local authorities to think that they can reduce their rates. But they had better consult their chamberlain and see what will happen if they continue their housing programme after that because they will find that they will have to put up their rates again when that prospective saving looking back after 1975 takes proper toll.
  There is no doubt at all—this is the second serious point we come to—that it is welshing on local authorities and is a breach of faith. It will ultimately place greater financial responsibility on them. When eventually the residual subsidy disappears, there are other subsidies in the Bill that were never mentioned. The high cost subsidy, which we heard so much about on Second Reading, will affect possibly only one local authority. Nobody else will get the benefit. We had better tell the Secretary of State what is in the Bill and what the results will be.
  Eventually local authorities will be left with only the housing expenditure subsidy. I should not be surprised if the figures for that are already out of

  597
  date. The Secretary of State has power to change them to reduce the benefit to a local authority. The figures relating to rent allowances and rent rebates had to be changed to bring them up to date. Many other figures are already out of date, so it will be difficult to make a calculation as to what will happen. However, I predict that when the residual subsidy has gone we shall not see an increase or the maintenance of the high level of house building which we have had over the past four years. There will be a rundown—a deliberate rundown—of the level of building.
  Meantime, local authorities will be left with the distasteful task of dealing with the rent increases which are mandatory under the Bill. One thing that is absolutely certain and that no Minister can deny is that in both the private tenement and the public authority sectors rents and rent income must go up. The figure is quantifiable in the public sector at the rate of about £50 million, though within a year after the introduction of the Bill I think it will have a considerable inflationary effect.
  Somebody suggested recently that that £50 million, which is a fair amount of money, is nothing compared with the increase in the price of beef. It may be—we do not know—that we shall get a beef rebate subsidy allowance before long if things go on as they are. Mr. David Newton, of Boston, Lincolnshire, is quoted in The Times today as saying:
  "prices are certainly higher than I have ever seen them. But this is simply the result of this country's coming into line with others in the Common Market. Everything is going up—petrol, bingo, and other food—so why not beef?"
  This is illustrative of what is happening. The Government will probably plead consistency, that what they are doing for housing they are doing for everything else.
  There will be increases in rents in the private sector. We have asked for the figure, but we have not got it. We do not know how many houses will be affected. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been delighted that there will be a tremendous improvement by landlords in the standard of Scottish private tenemented property. Will there be such an improvement? There is no qualification that they must spend the increased rents on repairs, maintenance,
  598
  or anything else. The one great protection which was included in the 1969 Act, that there had to be a tolerable standard and standard amenities before a local authority would give a qualifying certificate, has gone.
  Even when we come to the number of houses involved, we get no answer. I have asked for the answer all along. It is not good enough for the Under-secretary to say "We told you we could not give you the answer, and that is the answer." That was the kind of logic we got. However, the hon. Gentleman did quite a good job for the Secretary of State on the Bill. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman, we are grateful that the Under-Secretary of State was in charge of the Bill. Sincerely, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. Under-Secretaries of State at the Scottish Office probably have the most difficult jobs of the lot. A Scottish Standing Committee is not the easiest of Committees, because the Opposition tend to know their stuff. The hon. Gentleman had no help from the Lord Advocate or anyone else. I cannot say that the silent senator from Dumfries was any help to him. On the whole, the hon. Gentleman did a first-class job.
  The Secretary of State reminded us that the Bill probably took longer in Committee than any other. The last one which could approach it was the 1957 Housing (Scotland) Bill. I should know. I practically wrote the report myself—at least, Arthur Woodburn once told me that. The Secretary of State, the Law Officer, and the junior Minister were on the Standing Committee which considered that Bill. I do not want to worry the Under-Secretary, but the mortality rate of Under-Secretaries is high compared with that of Secretaries of State. However, the Under-Secretary did pretty well, and we are grateful to him.
  The Under-Secretary was obviously under the Diktat not to accept any Amendments. So we cannot say that he gave us much return for the work that was involved. The hon. Gentleman had a difficult task. He had a considerable number of reluctant revolutionaries behind him. They were not always behind him, mark you. Often they were out in the corridor. The Under-Secretary was not sure whether "Corporal" Gray

  599
  would get them in in time if it came to a Division.
  Of the 1,800,000 houses in Scotland, more than 1 million are local authority houses. There are probably between 80,000 and 100,000 private tenement properties covered by the Bill. The Bill covers practically every family in Scotland. In fact, the Bill is about three Bills in one, as is evident from Schedules 2 and 3. There are 78Clauses and 11 Schedules. Two of the Schedules are equivalent in themselves to a Bill. Instead of this huge Bill being considered by the largest Committee that we could have had, we had the smallest one.
  Mr. Sproat: It was a very good Committee.
  Mr. Ross: It was an excellent Committee, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman was there. From the point of view of representation, it was unfair to the major party in Scotland. Of the 71 Members from Scotland, there are 44 on the Labour side and only 23 on the other side.
  Mr. MacArthur: Gerrymandering.
  Mr. Ross: Let us wait and see. Let us have a General Election now and see exactly what happens.
  The speeches made by my hon. Friends and the way they sustained the strength of the opposition in Committee were a true reflection of the feelings of the majority of the people of Scotland. Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, the people of Scotland do not like the Bill, as they showed at the municipal elections. It was not a question of propaganda. The Government had every opportunity to make their case, but they failed to convince the people of all the benefits that are supposedly in the Bill. The fact that there will be an increase in rents cannot be denied.
  Over 90 per cent, of local authority houses are covered by rent rebate schemes, so all that the Bill introduces is an extra 10 per cent. We welcome that, as far as it goes. This is not the perfect rent rebate scheme. I quoted the schemes which operate in my constituency and in Ayr and cited case after case where people will be worse off. Even with the operation of this rebate scheme, once the rent increases take place even
  600
  those who are paying rebated rents will be paying higher rents.
  The one good point in the Bill is the provision regarding rent allowances. Hon. Members opposite have been in great difficulty about whether to compliment us on introducing the fair rent system with all its protection as regards rent phasing or attack us for not introducing an allowance for private tenants. We had the Francis Committee report and following that we would have taken action in respect of some of the things they said. We would not necessarily have taken this action, but the interesting thing that the Committee reported was an average increase in Scotland of about £12. In Glasgow it was £11, a matter of about 4s. a week.
  What developments have there been since then? We get a fairer indication from what is in the Bill of what the Government are expecting as to the maximum they are prepared to pay. We do not think it is high enough in view of what is happening. It is a flat £6 that the Government are prepared to pay in respect of rent allowance. There is no guarantee within that that the high rent is going to be used in respect of repairing or maintaining that house.
  Then we come to the staggering figure given by the Secretary of State that there are 215,000 houses in Scotland that have not reached tolerable standard. He did not break it up. I wish he had. If the Government have got the total surely they must know the constituent parts of it. We have been denied the information.
  Local authorities have a duty placed on them by the 1969 Act to bring these houses up to standard or close them. What is being done about that? If the houses are not of that standard, how many of them are going to get increased rent? If any of them get it, it will be a denial of all that has been said about maintaining or raising standards. What we insisted on was that the standard would be there. Improvements would be there before the rent increase came. That is how to approach fair rents—fair rents for fair houses. The danger is that we shall get higher rents without getting the improvements for which people are prepared to pay.
  The Secretary of State spoke about the new Culling worth Report. I did not want

  601
  to interrupt him, but it is a rule of this House that we do not refer to reports unless they have been placed on the Table. It is not published yet. That is not helpful. He tells us he is going to publish it.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I did not quote from the report. It is when one quotes that one lays the report. I merely gave notice that it had been received and is about to be published. It is an important event in housing in Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: Of course it is.
  The right hon. Gentleman did more than that. He tells us there will be a new assessment of need, and that we were to thank Professor Culling worth for that. How can we thank him if we have not seen the report?
  The Secretary of State said that this was a great new approach. It would have been much fairer if he had seen fit to publish the report and let us read it rather than on the Third Reading on a Bill, when one is limited to debating what is in the Bill, bringing in something which he thinks is important. We may think it is important when we see it.
  I am glad that the Government have discovered the importance of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. The Tories abolished it. We revived it. This body did all the basic work in relation to improvement and rent rebate schemes. [Interruption.] It is not only the guillotine, for which the hon. Gentleman voted. I faced two interruptions. Interruptions have come from the other side of the House, too. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here earlier, or whether he was one of the Epsom absentees, when we had the spectacle of the Under-Secretary speaking for 26 minutes.
  Mr. MacArthur: A very good speech.
  Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary's speech was not always relevant to the Amendments which were supposed to be under discussion.
  The Bill represents the most radical change in housing finance for more than 50 years. It is a breach of faith. It will not bring to house building that impetus over a sustained period which Scotland needs. It will lead eventually to a diminution in the building of houses, and that was foreshadowed in the speech of
  602
  the Secretary of State when he said that it was not numbers that the Government were thinking of but quality.
  The suggestion that there is hope and scope for choice in owner-occupation for the great mass of the people of Scotland is a denial of the facts. Anyone who knows what is happening to the price of privately built houses in Scotland knows that the majority of people for whom the local authorities have to cater cannot afford and will not be granted mortgages because of, first, their low wages and, secondly, the lack of stability and continuity of employment. Those have been the main reasons over the years for owner-occupation in Scotland not moving forward as it has done in England.
  During 1962, 1963 and 1964 more than 100,000 people in Scotland were unemployed, and there was considerable broken employment. The unemployment figure now is 135,000, and I assure the House that the outlook for people in Scotland is grim if they try to get a mortgage from a building society. A house which a year ago was selling for £5,000 is now going for £7,000. People just cannot get mortgages.
  By deciding to adopt a policy of letting things rip, a policy which has been outmoded by the facts of the situation, the right hon. Gentleman has let Scotland down. There will be an increase in rents. That may suit hon. Gentlemen opposite. They may for a time kid the Scottish people that rates will be reduced. I can think of another way in which rates can be reduced. In England industry pays 100 per cent. rates. In Scotland it pays only 50 per cent., and the other ratepayers have to bear the burden of the remainder.
  Let the Government not think—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene I shall be glad to give way if he rises to his feet to do so.
  Mr. Galbraith: Fair shares.
  Mr. Ross: What about the fair shares that we received earlier in the day? The Under-Secretary spoke for 26 minutes when we had only two hours in which to debate four Amendments. Having dished it out, hon. Gentlemen opposite had better learn to take it.
  Mr. MacArthur: It is a disgracefully long speech on Third Reading.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman was also part of the plot. He had no intention of taking part in the debate. We saw hon. Gentlemen opposite coming in one after the other. The hon. Gentleman for South Angus broke his customary silence. We are accustomed to hearing only coughs and sneezes from him.
  The Secretary of State said that this was a new era of opportunities. If he can see it as that, he is seeing more than anybody else who knows anything about housing in Scotland can. Some local authorities which are opposed to the Bill have said quite openly that they will not apply it, that they will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to carry out its provisions. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that they know nothing about housing?
  The fact that the right hon. Gentleman failed today to tell us just what he intended to do was another indication of the Government's failure to be frank with the people of Scotland. People there are angry with the Government over their employment policies. They will be even angrier by the end of the year when they are forced to pay a continuing series of rent increases for the same houses, all in order to save the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not prepared to meet the growing burden that arises out of meeting the needs of the people of Scotland.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have in the past shown that they are not prepared to trust the local authorities. They fought the last General Election saying they believed in the local authorities, that they wanted freedom for the local authorities. One thing which local authorities in Scotland have valued more than anything else has been their right to get on, properly supported by Government, with meeting the housing needs of the people of Scotland. Now the Government say "We do not trust them". They are saying they do not trust the way they are going to fix rents. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Construction was earlier today. He might have known just exactly what happened to our first Amendments when hon. Gentlemen opposite made speech after speech, monopolising time when we wanted to get through the Bill, and when the Under-Secretary himself
  604
  spoke for 26 minutes to something which should have taken about five minutes. The guillotine is not ours: it is theirs. Now if they discover they suffer under that guillotine, that is just too bad. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), too, is one of the people who have a lot to answer for.
  Mr. MacArthur: Filibuster.
  Mr. Ross: I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill has not been widely welcomed in Scotland—except by the private landlords.
  Mr. MacArthur: Filibuster.
  Mr. Ross: We heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead talking about the storm damage. That was the greatest lesson about the neglects and failures of private landlords. The hon. Member spoke of the number of local authority houses lying empty. Does he know how many privately tenemented properties are lying empty, not for the purpose of letting, but for selling, and not for the purpose of meeting the needs of the people of Scotland?
  This is one of the most disastrous Bills we have ever had, and it comes from one of the most disastrous Governments we are ever likely to have.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has, as usual, let the cat out of the bag. It is clear that he was scared to let us finish the debate in the customary way with a reply from this side. That is one of the reasons why the Opposition have been such an utter flop from start to finish on this Bill. They have never come to terms with what is in the Bill. They have never realised what is in the Bill. They have been able to attack the Bill only by picking out one or two things they believed to be bad and they have ignored all the good things in it.
  I have some good news for my hon. Friends, though. It has all been worth while. We have made some progress. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that rent allowances are a good thing. He has admitted that this evening. On Second Reading he said the Bill was means test mania. That was all

  605
  over the papers. We have learned something tonight: we have learned that we have taught him something.
  This Bill is a Bill which will provide more money for Scottish housing, not less. This is a Bill which will introduce for the first time a comprehensive rent rebate scheme to protect people who cannot afford the rents which will have to be paid. This is a Bill which for the first time introduces allowances for private tenants whose rents have gone up year after year. That is still happening under the right hon. Gentleman's Acts, under which those tenants had no protection at all. It is a Bill which introduces a new slum clearance subsidy far and away more generous than anything the right hon. Gentleman was ever able to produce during his time in office. It is a Bill which introduces the housing expenditure subsidy. It is a Bill which looks after the needs of people, and not only that but assists housing management and repairs.
  The right hon. Gentleman has to face the fact that we have taken action on all the things he failed to do during his time as Secretary of State. The people of Scotland should feel ashamed at the fact that he is standing here now pretending
  to be their champion. This Bill has put him off his stroke, because he never believed that a Tory Government would produce a Bill which would be more generous to the people of Scotland than anything else he and his party produced. The right hon. Gentleman has been proved wrong from start to finish on this Bill. He has not a leg to stand on, and he had not the guts to let the Government wind up the debate properly. At the time of Second Reading I said I thought the Scottish Labour Party never had looked more irrelevant to the needs of Scotland. Now, if anything, it has become more irrelevant—ever since the Bill was first introduced. This is a Bill which will transform the housing scene in Scotland. It will bring a change in the system. The right hon. Gentleman's message to the people on the waiting lists is simple. He does not want a change in the system. If that is his message to the people of Scotland, they will reject him.
  I hope that this Bill will be warmly supported by the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third Time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 239.

  Division No. 210.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Astor, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fox, Marcus

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Cooke, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Batsford, Brian

  Coombs, Derek

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gardner, Edward

  Bell, Ronald

  Cordle, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Benyon, W.

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Goodhew, Victor

  Biffen, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gorst, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Gower, Raymond

  Blaker, Peter

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)

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

  Gray, Hamish

  Body, Richard

  Dean, Paul

  Green, Alan

  Boscawen, Robert

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Grylls, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dixon, Piers

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Bowden, Andrew

  Drayson, G. B.

  Gurden, Harold

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Bray, Ronald

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Brewis, John

  Eden, Sir John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brocklebank-Fowler. Christopher

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bryan, Paul

  Emery, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Havers, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Farr, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fell, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Burden, F. A.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Fidler, Michael

  Higgins. Terence L

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Holland, Philip

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

  Simeons, Charles

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hordern, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hornby, Richard

  Molyneaux, James

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

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Money, Ernle

  Soref, Harold

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Speed, Keith

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Monro, Hector

  Spence, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sproat, Iain

  Hunt, John

  More, Jasper

  Stainton, Keith

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Morrison, Charles

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  James, David

  Mudd, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Murton, Oscar

  Stokes, John

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Neave, Airey

  Sutcliffe, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Tapsell, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nott, John

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kilfedder, James

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Temple, John M.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Percival, Ian

  Tilney, John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Knox, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Trew, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Lane, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Waddington, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Loveridge, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Luce, R. N.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Warren, Kenneth

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Redmond, Robert

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  McLaren, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rees, Peler (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McNair-wilson, Michael

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Maddan, Martin

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Madel, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Marten, Neil

  Rost, Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mather, Carol

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Younger, Hn. George

  Maude, Angus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Mawby, Ray

  Sharples, Richard

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  Deakins, Eric

  Albu, Austen

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cant, R. B.

  Doig, Peter

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dormand, J. D.

  Ashley, Jack

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Driberg, Tom

  Atkinson, Norman

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dunn, James A.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Eadie, Alex

  Barnes, Michael

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Barnett, Joel (Haywood and Royton)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ellis, Tom

  Baxter, William

  Conlan, Bernard

  English, Michael

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Evans, Fred

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ewing, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bishop, E. S.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Booth, Albert

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Foley, Maurice

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Dalyell, Tam

  Foot, Michael

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

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Ford, Ben

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Buchan, Norman

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Freeson, Reginald

  608

  609

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McBride, Neil

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Roper, John

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rose, Paul B.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackie, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hamling, William

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hardy, Peter

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marks, Kenneth

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Marsden, F.

  Sillars, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Silverman, Julius

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Skinner, Dennis

  Horam, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mendelson, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mikardo, Ian

  Steel, David

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Millan, Bruce

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Milne, Edward

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hunter, Adam

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Swain, Thomas

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taverne, Dick

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Tinn, James

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Torney, Tom

  John, Brynmor

  Ogden, Eric

  Urwin, T. W.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wainwright, Edwin

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

  Oram, Bert

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

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wallace, George

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Watkins, David

  Kelley, Richard

  Padley, Walter

  Weitzman, David

  Kinnock, Neil

  Paget, R. T.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lambie, David

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lambton, Antony

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lamond, James

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Whitlock, William

  Latham, Arthur

  Pentland, Norman

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lawson, George

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Prentice, Rt.Hn. Reg.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Leonard, Dick

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Probert, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rankin, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lipton, Marcus

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Mr. Tom Pendry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
    New Clause 6

      BAIL: PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED
      (1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect in place of the provisions of section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

      (2) For the purpose of this section a 'bail question' means a question whether any per son who has attained the age of seventeen (in this section referred to as 'such person') and who is the subject of proceedings in any court having criminal jurisdiction (in this section referred to as 'the court') shall or shall not be granted bail.

      (3) A bail question may arise at any time between the time when such person first appears before the court and the time when he commences to serve any sentence involving the loss of his liberty, or, if he gives notice of appeal, the time when the appeal is determined or abandoned.

      (4) A bail question shall be deemed to arise whenever such person is remanded or committed by the court or the proceedings of the court are adjourned.

      (5) Whenever a bail question arises and such person is not represented by counsel or a solicitor, the court shall either grant him bail or inform him that he is entitled to apply for bail and ask him whether he wishes so to apply and the court may, if it considers it expedient so to do, make a legal aid order to enable an application for bail to be made.

      (6) Whenever a bail question arises there shall be a presumption in favour of the grant of bail and such presumption shall prevail unless the court is satisfied upon sufficient evidence that the grant of bail to such person would be likely to involve a substantial risk—

      (a) to the safety of any person (including such person); or

      (b) to the security of property; or

      (c) that, notwithstanding any conditions imposed upon the grant of bail, such person would abscond; or

      (d) that it would be impracticable to obtain any report which the court requires.

      (7) For the purposes of this section 'the grant of bail' includes the grant thereof upon terms, that is to say, upon such conditions as appear to be reasonable or upon such person's own recognisance in a sum which, regard being had to his means, appears to be reasonable, or upon the provision of sufficient and satisfactory sureties in such sums as, regard being had to their means, appear to be reasonable and 'the refusal of bail' includes the grant of bail upon terms which such person states to be unacceptable to him.

      (8) A court which refuses bail solely upon the ground set out in paragraph (d) of subsection (6) above shall remand such person in custody for a specific period being no longer
      612
      than appears to be necessary for the purpose of obtaining the report and may from time to time extend the said period by a further specific period for the same purpose.

      (9) Whenever a bail question arises and an application for bail is refused, the court shall, if such person is not represented by counsel or a solicitor or, if he is so represented and his counsel or solicitor so requests, give him a written notice stating which of the reasons set out in subsection (6) above is the court's reason for refusing him bail and informing him of his right to apply for bail to such court or judge as may be appropriate.

      (10) Where in any such case as is referred to in subsection (9) above the court is informed that such person intends to apply to another court or to a judge, as the case may be, for bail, the court may make a legal aid order to enable such application to be made and any court to which or judge to whom any application for bail is made may make a legal aid order to enable such application to be pursued.

      (11) The provisions of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 shall apply to a legal aid order made for the purposes of this section, so however that any such legal aid order may be limited to the purpose for which it is made.—[Mr. S. C. Silkin.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.12 p.m.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is intended, if it is convenient, to discuss at the same time new Clause 8 standing in the names of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends:
      PERSONS IN CUSTODY: REPORTS TO AND DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

      (1) Whenever any person has been held in custody for a period or for two or more periods exceeding in total three months and such person's trial has not commenced it shall be the duty of the person who is in charge of the place where such person is held in custody to make a report thereon to the Secretary of State.

      (2)Whenever the duty to make a report has arisen by virtue of subsection (1) above and the person in respect of whom the said duty has arisen has been held in custody for a further period or further periods exceeding in total one month and such person's trial has not commenced, then at the end of each such further period or periods of one month it shall be the duty of the person who is in charge of the place where such person is held in custody to make a report thereon to the Secretary of State.

      (3) Whenever the Secretary of State receives a report by virtue of this section it shall be his duty to investigate the matter and, where

      613
      he considers it desirable so to do, to take in the interests of justice and of its expeditious administration such steps as may be appropriate, including reporting the matter to any court or judge.

      The purpose of the two new Clauses is to reform, to improve, to simplify and to clarify the law which governs the confinement in custody of those who, according to our ancient principles, are deemed to be innocent of any offence because they have not been found guilty and of those who intend to appeal against a conviction or who, though convicted, can safely beleft at liberty whilst then-future is being considered.
      It should not be necessary for me to dwell upon the importance of this subject. It is not merely a question of relieving the gross overcrowding of our prisons, and in particular, our remand prisons, whose standards have recently led to protest and to direct action by those in custody. That is important enough in itself, imposing, as it does, hardship on individuals and intolerable demands upon dedicated members of the prison staff. But even more important is the disruption of family life, the effect on jobs, and the blow to the spirit of those who may be proved to have been wrongly or unnecessarily incarcerated, the many who are ultimately acquitted or with whom the courts find themselves able to deal without the need for custodial sentence. I accept that there will be a proportion of those with whom the courts will deal leniently because they have been in custody, but none the less a great many fall into the other category.
      I said that it should not be necessary for me to dwell upon the importance of these matters affecting, as they do, many thousands more in every year than the few upon whom we spent nearly three hours when we were considering new Clause 2 before the Whitsun Recess. Certainly we on this side recognise that importance. I believe it is recognised by the Secretary of State and by the Minister of State.
      11.15 p.m.
      But I am compelled to say that the public generally must wonder how much importance we attach to a debate on this subject when we commence it as the hour approaches midnight after a long day's discussion of other important topics. Of course, every hon. Member is aware
      614
      that the Government's time table is in a state of chaos and confusion. This is after all, the new style of Government which the Prime Minister promised us two years ago—Government by chopper followed by Government by exhaustion. It is intolerable that these conditions should be forced on us for a debate on a topic which raises wide concern outside this House and in which many of my hon. Friends wish to participate. We protest in the strongest terms against the indifference and the ineptitude of the so-called managers of Government business.
      New Clause 6 is a detailed revision of the law with the object of strengthening the basic principles concerning remand in custody which are contained at the moment in Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967 and with the object of clarifying the application of those principles. New Clause 8 brings together and improves upon a number of the Amendments we moved separately in Committee. It is intended to increase the power of the Secretary of State to supervise the use by the courts of remand in custody by ensuring that he is informed whenever a person has been held in custody over a period which is excessive, and which we place at three months, without reaching trial and thereafter month by month, requiring him to investigate such cases and enabling him to take action in appropriate cases. New Clause 8 provides, therefore, a highly desirable means of ensuring that the basic principles of remand in custody are safeguarded.
      New Clause 6 is the main new Clause we are moving tonight and contains four major improvements on the system established by Section 18 of the 1967 Act. First, it creates an explicit presumption in favour of the grant of bail from the moment when a person first appears in court until the moment of his sentence, and even beyond that if he appeals. In so doing, it reasserts in modern times the principle which has been accepted since Magna Carta and which has more than once been reaffirmed in rather more modern times by the present Lord Chancellor.
      Secondly, it requires that the courts shall not depart from that ancient principle unless they are satisfied, and satisfied not merely upon suspicion or belief, as so often happens, but upon sufficient

      615
      evidence, that the case is one of those exceptions which alone justify an exercise of die discretion against the subject. Thirdly, it improves upon the requirements of subsections (7) and (8) of Section 18, those requirements which at present require an unrepresented defendant who is refused bail to be given the reasons for that refusal and to be informed of his right to apply to a High Court judge.
      New Clause 6 extends that right in four different ways. First, it requires the court to inform an unrepresented defendant of his right to apply for bail. It is indeed the unrepresented defendant who is most likely to fail to apply through ignorance of his right to apply.
      The point was made by the Lord Chancellor in the speech he made last September to the Magistrates' Association which was referred to in Standing Committee. He said,
      "When a prisoner is on remand, magistrates should always make it their business to be certain that a defendant is aware of his right to ask for bail, and where bail is refused of his right to further recourse to a judge."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14th March, 1972; c. 1011.]
      In Committee the Minister of State made the extraordinary point in reply to this argument that it would be useless for courts to tell a defendant of his right to apply for bail if the court had already decided not to grant it. That is a remarkable view of the maxim audi alteram partem, which I hope will not be repeated tonight.
      It enables a court to make a legal aid order for the specific purpose of enabling the defendant to apply for bail and it recognises that the lack of representation is, or may be, a serious handicap in the presentation of the case for bail or in the scrutiny of an objection to bail. Very often the latter is the more important matter to be attended to.
      The new Clause brings the law up to date by requiring the court, if it refuses bail to an unrepresented defendant, to inform him not only of his right to apply to a High Court judge but also of his rights under the Courts Act to apply to the Crown Court. This is at present in an amended Schedule to the Bill, the Amendment having been put in at our instance in Committee. In these respects the new Clause follows closely the pro-
      616
      posals made not so long ago by a group of Conservative lawyers.
      It makes specific provision for the grant of legal aid in all cases where that right is exercisable, including those applications to a High Court judge which are dealt with at present by the Official Solicitor.
      The most important of the major improvements introduced by the new Clause is a change in the method by which courts will be able to justify the departure from the general Magna Carta principle. Section 18 lists a number of pegs on which a court can hang a decision to refuse bail. There are eight of them in subsection (5) and one in subsection (6). The drawback of a peg is that it is easy to hang a hat on it. The new Clause removes the pegs and establishes broad principles or criteria within which the courts may act. They are the basic justifications for a refusal of bail; the present pegs are merely examples of them.
      The four criteria which are set by the new Clause are a substantial risk to the safety of the person; to the security of property; of the likelihood of the defendant absconding; and of failure to obtain a necessary report. I would accept one further broad justification which is not included but which could be inserted in the House of Lords, and that is a substantial risk that witnesses may be tampered with.
      It is frequently important, when considering the very important work of revising legislation, to look back on the debates which took place when the existing legislation was passed into law. In this case that is some five years or more ago. I have studied the debates in Standing Committee on the Clause which became Section 18 of the 1967 Act. I see from those debates that if I was wrong in the view I have just expressed, that we should be looking at the broad principles rather than at the pegs created by the 1967 Act, I was equally wrong then, because I then argued for the same general criteria as those for which I argued tonight.
      What is perhaps more important than my consistency in error is to see who was wrong with me on that occasion, and they are a distinguished group.
      The present Lord Chancellor said:
      "In truth and in fact, I am confident that the only reasons for which magistrates ought

      617
      ever, under the existing law or under any proposed law, to refuse to give bail are primarily that the man proposes to jump bail; secondly, that the man proposes to interfere with witnesses in one way or the other; and thirdly, that the man will commit an offence while on bail."
      Later he said:
      "…my fear—and I understood it to be echoed by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich—is that this Clause,"
      —he was speaking of the Clause which became Section 18 of the Act—
      "looked at plainly as a piece of English, which is how the magistrates will have to look at it, will divert the magistrates' attention from the right points and attract their attention to the wrong points. It seemed to me that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich had the right answer. They ought to be told in the Statute what ought to govern their decision. I have stated that now three times in order to save time, and I shall not state it again."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15th February, 1967; c. 438 and 448.]
      The Lord Chancellor repeated the same view in the speech to which I have referred, which he made last September to the Magistrates' Association. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkesnhead (Mr. Dell), in an eloquent and informed speech in Committee, referred to the Lord Chancellor as saying:
      "Secondly, prior to conviction, prima facie, a defendant is entitled to bail, especially before trial, unless there is some reason to believe that he may run away, get at the witnesses or commit further offences.…
      " 'There are, however, four main considerations for refusing bail. They are:

      (i) The likelihood or otherwise of the defendant disappearing before trial or before the final disposal of the case on sentence or appeal.

      (ii) The chances of his committing further offences when out on bail.

      (iii) The chances of his interfering with the course of justice when out on bail. (iv) The necessity to procure medical or social reports pending a final disposal of the case.' "—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14th March, 1972; c. 994.]

      It is those four principles, or rather three plus one, which I have already said I should be willing to see added to the new Clause, which this Clause contains in so many words.
      That was the Lord Chancellor. The former Attorney-General, the late Sir John Hobson, said,
      "By and large, I find myself in substantial agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). What he suggests is a sensible way of dealing with it. On consideration, it might be possible to try to devise a different framework, but on the
      618
      whole his framework seems sensible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A 15th February, 1967; c. 444.]
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir Arthur Irvine), the former Solicitor-General, and the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) spoke in a similar sense.
      But if we were all wrong in moderation, there was one Member of the Committee who spoke in a most immoderate way about the Clause, saying,
      "As I understand it, the purpose of this Clause is to extend the provisions of bail, or to try to ensure that where possible people are released on bail rather than being retained in custody."
      Having quoted a considerable number of figures about people kept in custody when in many cases they need not be, he went on:
      "If that is so then in my submission this Clause, which attempts to deal with the problem, could be described at the most as beginning to nibble at the surface of the problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15th February, 1967; c. 423.]
      That was the present Minister of State. New Clause 6 does not nibble at the problem. It meets it and it deals with it. The Minister of State told us in Committee that the passage into law of Section 18 has at least improved the situation, and I accept that. The figures bear it out. If, as some suggest, improvement is due, in part at any rate, to the publicity created by the discussion on Section 18, then we are performing a valuable function by discussing this new Clause, even at this late hour.
      I believe that a clearer and strengthened Section 18 will still further improve a situation which can and must be improved. I hope that the militancy which the hon. and learned Member showed on that occasion has not slipped from his shoulders since he became Minister of State. I must warn him and the Home Secretary that we shall not be content on this occasion with soothing but negative words, or with emollient but idle phrases. We expect these Clauses to be accepted in form or at least in principle. We do not regard it as either necessary or desirable to await the report of some working party. Parliament is the working party of the nation, and if the Government fail to respond to our proposals, then we shall certainly be forced to record our disappointment in the Lobby.
      11.30 p.m.
      Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham): I oppose this Clause although I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). Everyone must regard this as a timely debate in view of the background to it, which is the report, published today, of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for the year 1971. All who have studied the report must be mindful of its contents. We read that in the year under review crime increased by 6 per cent. and crimes of violence by 15 per cent. The total number of arrests for indictable offences was 86,287, a rise of 6·6 per cent. over 1970.
      The significant factor that is the background to the debate is that during the year under review over 2,000 persons were arrested for indictable offences committed while they were on bail. As approximately only one in three is arrested, this means that almost certainly 6,000 offences were committed by persons on bail in 1971. That is a staggering figure. It does not seem a very clever or appropriate time to make the major changes suggested here.
      I was not on the Standing Committee, but that is no reason why I should not speak on the subject. I have a limited experience of criminal courts. I do not think that magistrates refuse bail, when they do refuse it, because they want to be unreasonable or harsh. They do so because in practically every case they feel that if bail is granted further offences are likely to be committed by those released on bail. Those views are reinforced by what we read today in the report of the Commissioner of Police.
      The country faces a tremendous rise in crime, and this is not a good or sensible time to change the arrangements for bail in the way suggested. Such a change will be doubly resented by the police, and we need their confidence. Certainly it will be misunderstood by the general public, and it will be welcomed by the criminal classes. For those reasons, I hope that the new Clause will not be accepted.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: Immediately before the Whitsun Recess, I was able to raise with the Minister of State in passing the question of bail during a wider debate on the
      620
      subject of our civil liberties. The only reply that I had was the usual flow of smooth words, without anything substantial to answer the problem of bail applications.
      One of the by-products of the failure of our courts to grant bail when it ought to be granted is the unrest in our prisons and the militant note which has been struck inside them recently, not least in Brixton and in Strange ways, Manchester. With the overcrowding of prisons and the inadequate facilities, the militancy which has been manifested outside in other spheres now apparently is infiltrating into these non-violent protests in our gaols. The reason is that a period of three months awaiting trial after committal is wrong.
      Those of us who have the unfortunate experience of visiting these people know that to go to Brixton to interview a person who has been kept inside a prison cell for a period of three months is by no means unusual, and the period may be as long as 10 months. Recently cases have been reported. There was one only the other day of a man who waited six months for trial, and the only reason why he was not given bail was that his surety found the procedure so bureaucratic that she eventually gave up trying. The result was that he languished for six months and was eventually acquitted of the charge.
      Many of us have had personal experiences in this connection, not least with regard to those awaiting appeal. One example was of a man with five children on a first offence. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. His appeal came up after five months. He was sent away a free man, the conviction having been quashed. But by that time he had served five of what in effect would have been a six-month period in prison. What became of his wife and family in that time?
      In replies that the Minister has given me, he has indicated that last year 32,000 people were remanded in custody awaiting trial or reports and not given custodial sentences subsequently. Of those 32,000, 2,500 or so were acquitted. While 2,000 offenders committed offences while on bail, 2,500 persons who were not offenders were kept inside our prisons and were subsequently released because they were found to be not guilty, and 30,000

      621
      people were not given custodial sentences after a period in prison.
      We all know the practice of detaining people for reports, sometimes quite legitimately but often not necessarily. Again, we have all come across experiences such as the recent case of a girl of 17 who was remanded in custody at Holloway for medical and social inquiry reports. I asked her how long those reports had taken. I was told 20 minutes in one case and 30 minutes in the other. She was kept in prison for two weeks and subsequently placed on probation. That is not up typical of the experiences of many of us in dealing with persons who come before our courts.
      The main problem is not with the higher courts but with magistrates' courts with regard to remands for inquiries and remands pending trial and for reports. Perhaps it is a mercy in some cases that people are committed in custody to the higher courts. We know that those were not committed in custody instead of waiting their three months. They may well have to wait over a year if they happen to be in the area of Inner London or Middlesex.
      There is an important question that touches upon our freedom. It is all too often alleged by those who have passed through the hands of the police—often falsely but far too often for us to be comfortable about it—that the granting of bail is a bargaining point for a plea of guilty. It happens, or is alleged to happen, far too frequently to be ignored.
      Although it has been said that magistrates do not wish to be harsh, the fact is that lay magistrates are timed and far too readily accede to police objections. The police should be in a position to present evidence as set out in new Clause 6, that there may be intimidation, the likelihood of another offence being committed or that the person is unlikely to turn up for trial. However, the onus must be on those opposing the liberty of the subject.
      Surely legal representation is as vital in this sphere as it is in any other. Only today I have had the experience of seeing a completely inarticulate man faced with the position of having been arrested yesterday and unable in any sense to ask for bail in the way he would have been able to do had he been represented. The reasons for the denial of bail must be given in full, just as one would give
      622
      a judgment in a civil case. The problem is that when bail is refused it is always said that one can go to a judge in chambers. But how many of those people facing this situation are informed of that? If they are informed, how many have the means when they are denied legal aid, to go to a judge in chambers when manifestly bail should have been allowed and the magistrates were too timid to allow it?
      These are all problems which have been dealt with adequately in the new Clause, which I warmly support. They provide guide lines and principles that can be adhered to by the courts. There are firm principles which are substituting the whims or prejudices of individual members of the bench.
      It is right that Parliament should lay down these firm guide lines on a subject which is of growing importance to the individual citizen and his liberty.
      Mr. W. F. Deedes: In a way, a number of us would not be unwilling to look afresh at some of the principles governing the granting of bail. I accept a certain amount of what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said in moving his new Clause. It is designed to reform, improve and simplify the law in this direction. By comparison with the United States of America, which has given an immense amount of thought and inquiry to this subject, we have probably tended to under rate or under-inquire into the subject.
      There is a good deal of evidence that the practice of the courts is in some respects unsatisfactory, though not from one standpoint only. However, we are entitled to question whether the new Clause is the right way to tackle this problem. To my mind the new Clause is only too typical of the way in which a number of matters have been dealt with in my memory in Criminal Justice Bills. This might be described as creating reform by hunch. Only in the light of trial and error—more often, I am afraid, error than trial—do we discover that we have it wrong. Therefore, I question whether—I accept the sincerity with which the hon. and learned Gentleman moved this new Clause—this is the right way to go about it.
      Another question which has arisen in the minds of some of my hon. Friends is

      623
      whether bail is too liberal or not liberal enough. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) in the light of the Commissioner's report was fair and valid. I have no doubt, in the light of what I am told by chief constables elsewhere, that his recommendation would be rejected by those with experience outside the Metropolitan area.
      What gives cause for disquiet is not so much the administration of justice in this matter as the administrative consequences. We are up against the result of a criminal explosion and the heavy administrative demands which this makes.
      11.45 p.m.
      The scandal today lies not with the injustice whether bail is or is not granted, but with the wholly inadequate administrative provision for those who are on remand. No one who has recent experience of looking over Brixton Prison, which is one of the principal centres which receives people on remand, could be satisfied with the conditions there. That point must be made by those who en passant oppose the new Clause. Brixton Prison cannot be defended from any standpoint as a sound administrative penal centre. It suffers not from neglect but from gross overloading.
      I should like to take the matter one stage further. This is a minor point, but I know that one of my hon. Friends is deeply concerned about it. We know that in the Midlands no centre exists for women on remand. They have to travel about 90 miles to trial and back in intolerable circumstances because the administrative arrangements are inadequate.
      All this hammers home the lesson which so many Criminal Justice Bills ought to have taught us by now—that, however good our intentions may be, in the end our administrative failings undermine the best of intentions. This has happened again and again with detention centres, borstal institutions and, I suspect, bail.
      I hope that the Minister of State will resist the new Clause because it is probably the wrong approach to a big subject. However, I hope that he will agree that there is a need to undertake an urgent review of the administration which
      624
      governs prisoners on remand, because no one can be satisfied with the arrangements which now obtain. I believe that is the right approach. I do not accept that it is the administration of justice rather than wholly inadequate administration which is wrong.
      Mr. Edmund Dell: The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) complained that the new Clause was based on hunch. He knows, having been a member of the Committee, that again and again in Committee we tried to find out what the Home Office knew about this subject but were given a complete blank as an answer. For example, the Home Office does not know how many people on bail abscond.
      The right hon. Gentleman then said that the problem is administrative inadequacy. I cannot believe that he is saying that, because of administrative inadequacies in the system, therefore people who could safely be allowed bail should be remanded in custody. This surely would be an intolerable situation.
      Incidentally, the fact that this happens makes the administrative problems in our prisons that much more serious. Nobody causes administrative problems in our local prisons more than the man who is remanded in custody, because of the necessity to take him to the court. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the studies which have been made of the administrative problems which arise because people who could perfectly well be remanded on bail are remanded in custody?
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin)—I congratulate him on a brilliant piece of drafting—has deployed the essential arguments in favour of the reform of the law in this respect. I add two arguments to those that he deployed. First, the law rightly requires that the courts should not imprison first offenders wherever it is possible to avoid it. There is no such presumption in respect of remanding first offenders in custody. It is just as right that there should be discouragement in that respect as in respect of sentences of imprisonment.
      Second, as I showed in Committee, the tendency of the courts is to remand in custody young offenders to an extent far greater than the contribution of young

      625
      offenders to crime. This, again, is unnecessary and unjustifiable.
      I want mainly to deal not with the argument for the Clause, because my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) have covered that fully, but with the arguments which have been deployed against a reform of the law of this type. One of the arguments has been that magistrates' courts do not remand people in custody out of harshness or from lack of interest. The Lord Chancellor has made it clear that in his view people are being remanded in custody unnecessarily, that he suspects that remands in custody are being used in certain cases as a punishment, and that, no matter that some hon. Members may regard that as desirable, it is contrary to the law. That is what is happening. The issue is whether people should be remanded in custody when there is no reason of the type specified in the Clause why they should not be remanded on bail.
      The second argument against is one which the Minister of State has used on a number of occasions, namely, that there has been progress in this respect: a smaller proportion of people are now being remanded in custody and more are being remanded on bail. I express my gratitude to the Minister of State for sending me recently some figures he has produced which show the picture in the country as a whole over the period 1969–70. There is some comfort in these figures, but I do not find as much comfort in them as the Minister of State finds, because the figures show two things. They show, first, that in the Metropolitan Police District, where the majority of people are being remanded, the tendency is the other way. Whereas in the country as a whole most people are dealt with immediately and are not remanded, in the Metropolitan Police District most people are remanded, and more people were being remanded in custody in 1970 than in 1969.
      The main argument throughout these debates has been that the right way to deal with the problem is by administrative methods, not through the law. I take one specific example of the use of administrative methods, the case of medical remands. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), who so approves of remands in custody, probably
      626
      does not approve of people being sent to prison simply for the purpose of getting a medical report. The Home Office set up an out-patient clinic at Holloway so that people could be remanded on bail and yet have a medical report. The Minister of State's experience of the working of that scheme was expressed in Committee, when he pointed out that the use of it was disappointing. One reason he gave was that the original catchment area was small. His statement that its use was disappointing implies that he feels that, despite the fact that he set up this administrative system for reducing remands in custody, magistrates' courts covered by the scheme were continuing to remand in custody when they could perfectly well in the new circumstances have remanded on bail.
      The second part of his argument from which he takes comfort is that the failure was due to the fact that the original catchment area was so small—or that it was in part because of that. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the evidence which the Howard League presented to the Home Office working party on bail, which shows in paragraph 39 that the catchmentarea was not so small and that the two courts concerned in 1967 sent 24 per cent. of Holloway's medical remand prisoners. It was not so small, but the use was negligible.
      If the Minister is to rely at all on administrative methods he must put some effort behind them. He must not just set them up. He must make sure the courts use them. The fact is that the courts did not use this experimental scheme. Unless he puts some effort behind it, they will not use the extended scheme which he has set up.
      In Committee we had a discussion on Section 18. One of the effects of the new Clause is to extend the coverage of the presumption in favour of bail which Section 18 of the 1967 Act was intended to create. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I had a discussion in Committee on whether Section 18 covered Section 14(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. He said that it did not. I said that it did. He repeated that in a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend and in a letter I received today he courteously withdraws his position. I am grateful to him for his courteous withdrawal.

      627
      His withdrawal has certain implications which perhaps he has not appreciated. What is the view of the magistrates' courts on whether Section 18 of the 1967 Act covers Section 14(3) of the 1952 Act? If the Home Office can be stubbornly mistaken in this point over a period of months, it is possible that the magistrates' courts are not clear on it. What is the view of the magistrates' courts on this subject? Does the Minister of State know? Will he inquire?
      There are further implications of his withdrawal. In 1969, the last year for which figures were available, there were 11,000 remands in custody for reports under Section 14(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act. It is interesting that in Committee, when the hon. and learned Gentleman was maintaining his point of view on this, he said that I could not be right because if I were right all these remands could not possibly have taken place. He said
      "If the right hon. Gentleman is right that Section 14 remands are covered by Section 18(1) and (2), presumably they must also be covered by Section 18(6) if magistrates remand in custody at all, because if they are covcrel only by Section18(1) and (2) presumably on summary trial there would be no power to remand in custody."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 14th March, 1972; c. 1005.]"
      But now the Minister of State is facing the fact that he was wrong and that I am right. He is facing the fact that there is, subject to Section 18(5), no power to remand in custody and yet all these remands in custody took place. Do the magistrates' courts understand the law as now, more correctly, interpreted by the Minister of State?
      12 midnight
      Section 18(5) provides the exemptions and ways out. Is the Minister saying that these 11,000 remands in custody in 1969 were covered by that Section? Is he going to inquire into that? It did not seem feasible to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it could be the case, but is he saying now that it is? Now he has to say that if he is to maintain the position that the law is in a satisfactory state. If he cannot say that—and I believe that he cannot—then he has to accept as an implication of his withdrawal that the law needs, first, strengthening, and, secondly, clarifying.
      What about the refusal of written reasons for the refusal of bail? Does the Minister know whether these 11,000 remands under Section 14(3) were given written reasons? I am sure that he does not, because so often the Home Office has to work on hunch. The Minister does not know, and such evidence as I have is that they are not given written reasons, as they are required to be given under Section 18, if, as the Minister now admits, Section 14(3) is covered by Section 18.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman may take comfort from the fact that courts are required to give written reasons only if bail is refused, and the view is that bail is refused only if it is asked for. We have here the position that an offender to be remanded in custody under Section 14(3) has to know his law so well that he asks for a remand on bail, when the Home Office itself did not know until recently that Section 18 covered Section 14(3).
      The Minister shakes his head, but the fact of the matter is that if the Home Office cannot be certain on a point of law of this importance, it cannot expect the offender in a court to know that in order to secure his legal rights to a written statement of the reasons for refusal of bail he has to ask for bail. That is the argument on which the Minister depended in Committee.
      The Minister's withdrawal has wider implications than perhaps he has noticed. His withdrawal means that the law clearly requires to be reformed. I cannot accept that we can wait for the report of the Working Party on Bail. It seems to me that we cannot afford to lose this legislative opportunity to reform the law. It is important that the law should be strengthened and clarified, and the administrative changes which the Minister wishes to make, though they are welcome, are likely to have a small impact unless he puts a great deal more effort behind them than there has been evidence of so far.
      The Minister agreed in Committee to review the form covering the application to a judge in chambers. He agreed also to discuss with the Law Society whether solicitors were giving help in the filling up of forms. I hope that he will tell us that he has done those two things. The main point that emerges from the

      629
      Minister's withdrawal and from the other arguments that we have been deploying this evening is that the law must be reformed.
      Mr. F. P. Crowder: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. I welcome the principles contained in the new Clause and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) on the drafting of it, but he must remember that if it becomes part of the Bill it will go to lay magistrates in various parts of the country who have been carrying out their duties in respect of granting bail in an extremely efficient manner.
      What is a farmer in Devon, sitting as a magistrate, to think and say when he reads subsection (7) which says:
      For the purposes of this section' the grant of bail' includes the grant thereof upon terms, that is to say, upon such conditions as appear to be reasonable or upon such person's own recognisance in a sum which, regard being had to his means, appears to be reasonable, or upon the provision of sufficient and satisfactory sureties in such sums as, regard being had to their means, appear to be reasonable and 'the refusal of bail' includes the grant of bail upon terms which such person states to be unacceptable to him.
      Sir Elwyn Jones: Perhaps the farmer would read it rather more intelligently than that.
      Mr. Crowder: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) should intervene, because anybody less intelligent than he at reading anything I have never found in this House. After all, a Devonshire farmer knows what bail is all about. He does not require a lot of verbiage such as this subsection to guide him about what he has to do.
      In my respectful submission, the three main features with which a magistrate is concerned when he has to deal with bail are: first, is the man likely to stand his trial; secondly, is he likely to commit any further offence between committal and trial; thirdly, is he likely meanwhile to interfere with any witnesses who may be called against him? When a magistrate has to decide whether he should grant bail the police are called. Such is the normal custom. They are asked whether they oppose bail—and those are normally the three matters which are put to them.
      630
      Of course, if a police officer goes into the box and says, "I have reason to believe that this man will interfere with witnesses", there can be very little cross-examination, there can be very little argument about the matter, and if there is a real fear of that, then the court obviously will be very loath to grant bail in the face of an experienced police officer in charge of the case saying that in his view the man is likely to interfere with witnesses. In those circumstances it would quite obviously be irresponsible for the court to grant bail. Equally, if a police officer goes into the box and says that, having regard to the man's previous convictions, having regard to his record, the man is very likely to commit a further offence pending trial, once again the court is put in a very difficult position.
      I have always thought it a great pity, in cases where bail could be given, that the bail should not be paid in money there and then on the spot. It is all very well to say, "Bail is granted in two sureties, £150 in each surety". I should like to see the colour of the money in court before a person is granted bail, because if it is a question, as it nearly always is, whether the man stands his trial and whether he will turn up in six or seven months' time, before what used to be quarter sessions and now probably is the Crown Court of Assize, it is a great thing that the money is there; there is no argument about estreating bail when a man fails to appear on behalf of it.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. and learned Member arguing the case now for bail bond shops as exist in New York and other cities of the United States, and which are a front for racketeering? Or is he suggesting that sureties should be obliged to sell out their assets when the assets are not liquid? This would be the only method of depositing the money with the court. What is he suggesting?
      Mr. Crowder: I am much obliged for that intervention. It is most helpful. I am not saying that it should necessarily be obligatory, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are often cases where bail is deserving, where large sums are available by way of surety, and where the court is not sure of it. I do not see why the court, when it thinks fit in its own judgment, should not be

      631
      empowered on occasion to say, in its own discretion, "I do not see why this man should not have bail. He says that he can produce two sureties in the sum of £500 or £1,000 each. But this court would like to see the colour of their money". Although the court is not altogether happy about granting bail, it may say that it will grant bail provided the money is deposited with the court and that the man should surrender his passport and himself to the police station twice a day to indicate that he is working in a reasonable job and has not left the country. We all know the delays which take place in this country before cases come for trial.
      The reason for my putting this argument is that I do not see why the discretion should be taken away from the courts. The discretion as to bail should not be imposed on the courts by statute. But I welcome the Clause and the very good guidance it gives.
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) congratulated the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) on the principles embodied in the new Clause. I do not see why he should have done so because there is nothing new in the principles. The principles are accepted on both sides. All that is new is that they are embodied in a proposed piece of legislation and setout in very clear terms. No farmer in Devon could have read the Clause as stupidly as did the hon. and learned Gentleman. Though apparently the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that farmers in Devon are likely to understand perfectly the principles which govern granting bail, apparently they are not able to read them sensibly.
      The sole question for decision by this House is whether it is beneficial for the country that these principles, which are generally agreed and which have been set out on a number of occasions by the present Lord Chancellor, should be embodied in legislation or whether they should be left merely to administrative action, as in the past. That depends on whether we are satisfied with the general way in which remand in custody is made and the way in which bail is granted.
      632
      I did not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). He was right to refer to the report which came out today. Naturally hon. Members are always concerned about the increase in the incidence of crime. The hon. Member inferred from the report, in a way which I did not follow but which I accept for the purpose of the argument that 6,000 crimes in the metropolitan area were committed while people were on bail. If there is any substantial risk of damage to property or to any person, principles for dealing with it are embodied in this Bill. Those are the principles acted upon now by magistrates when they decide whether to grant bail. What difference can the embodiment of these principles in legislation make to the general practice of the magistrates?
      What is in question is the way in which magistrates in certain parts of the country interpret the rules. There is uneven administration. This is what concerns most people. They know of cases in which bail clearly would be granted under one jurisdiction but it is not granted. If the case were in a different county with a different bench, bail would be granted and it is not. The position is the same with remands. Some benches are notoriously lenient about remands in custody. People who should be remanded in custody are not. The position is unsatisfactory.
      I wish that I could believe that the matter could be left to be solved by administrative action, but I regret to say that my experience is that it cannot. We should not lose this opportunity of embodying the principles to which I have referred in this Bill. There is nothing new in the requirements about giving reasons in writing to the accused person.
      12.15 a.m.
      If the principles are clearly embodied in a piece of legislation of this kind, then everyone is informed that there is a presumption that bail should be granted, unless certain conditions are satisfied. This knowledge could in time operate to the disadvantage of the accused. In other words, if the jury knew that the man had not been on bail, that could operate to his disadvantage, though it probably does to a degree now. However, that is not a very substantial point and I think

      633
      that the advantages of the Clause cancel out this consideration.
      Second, our law is in danger of becoming more and more involved rather along the American pattern. The more we try to embody principles in legislation to tell people their rights, the more involved the law tends to become. Although this is the greatest argument against the Clause, I have not been persuaded, although I am aware of the danger not only in regard to this legislation but in regard to the legal profession generally, that we get more and more involved in preliminary arguments instead of getting to the substance of the matter; is this man guilty or not guilty? We spend perhaps too much judicial—counsel and solicitors'—time dealing with these preliminary issues.
      I have come to the conclusion that the present position relating to remand—the divergence of practice in the granting of bail—is such that it would be better to adopt this Clause and embody these principles in legislation. However, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich that it is essential in another place that the fifth principle, that of a substantial risk of interference with the course of justice—interference with the witness—should be included.
      I have decided, after considerable thought, having had doubts about the second point to which I referred, that it would be advantageous to have these principles embodied in legislation.
      Mr. Edward Gardner: The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) was good enough to refer to a recent report of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. He will recall that that report said that remand in custody was a very disquieting and difficult problem, and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that.
      I am bound to say that I do not think that the proposals of the hon. and learned Gentleman would either remove the disquiet or solve this difficulty. The thrust of the argument we heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman was not all in one direction. There are two clear and persuasive sides to it. The first side, which moves me and will move all hon. Members, is the fact that the latest figures, for 1969, showed that there were 44,000 people in our prisons who were
      634
      not there for anything to do with punishment and that after trial about 21,000 of them were released, either because they were acquitted or because the court decided that a sentence other than imprisonment could be imposed against them.
      On the other hand, we have had the figures contained in the Police Commissioner's report rehearsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). These showed in effect that last year 2,049 people committed crimes after being released on bail. The significant figure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham did not mention, was that of those 2,049 people who committed crimes after they had been freed on bail, 700 were released in the face of objection by the police.
      It is true that Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, sets out clearly the principles upon which a court can refuse to grant bail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) mentioned that the Americans have given a great deal more research and have very much more to their credit on the subject of bail than we have. It is worth bearing in mind that Section 18 of the 1967 Act was introduced into that Bill, as it then was, after a report of a Committee of Justice, which looked at the way in which the American system was working and concluded that one of the defects in the law at that time was any clarification of the principles upon which a court could properly refuse to grant bail. Section 18 of the 1967 Act did much to remedy that lacuna. Now what remains is any clear guide in our legislation, as we have it at present, of the principles upon which a court should grant bail. It would be a credit to the Government if some consideration could be applied to this particular problem.
      One of my criticisms of the new Clause is that it does nothing to add any kind of principle or to clarify any kind of principle which would enable a court to be guided into a decision on whether to grant or to refuse bail. Of that I am absolutely clear.
      I conclude with a point which is paramount in a consideration of any kind of legislation upon which we have to embark to improve our system of granting or refusing bail. We give, rightly, an immense amount of care to a plea of

      635
      innocence during trial and do all that we can by our procedures to make sure that a person is not improperly deprived of his liberty. If they do not know this already, the courts ought to be educated about the equal importance of paying attention to the need of making certain, and doing everything to make certain, that a person is not improperly deprived of his liberty before trial.
      It is with some regret that I say that the new Clause would not achieve that purpose.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that this issue is very much one of balance. It is not a straight-cut issue on one side or the other. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) rightly pointed out that a number of crimes were committed by people who were on bail. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) made the very telling point that a large number of people remanded in custody were eventually acquitted after spending a long time in prison for no reason. Similarly, a much larger number, having been remanded in custody, were eventually given a non-custodial sentence.
      The important issue here is that people are in custody on remand for rather a long time at present. I do not think we should be worried so much if that were not so—if, for example, there were only a week or a fortnight between committal and trial. Perhaps I can put forward what may be regarded as a slightly facetious proposition—that the courts should take an example from the National Industrial Relations Court and sit at weekends in order to clear up the backlog of cases. But I do not think that suggestion will be greeted with enthusiam by the lawyers on either side of the House.
      Apart from the worry of keeping people in custody on remand for such long periods, there is also a factor of the overcrowding of remand prisons and the bad conditions which exist because of this. The whole thing adds up to the question of balance. I am in favour of new Clause 6 basically because of the length of time people are now kept in custody on remand. Every hon. Member
      636
      has brought to his attention constituency cases where people have been kept in custody on remand for four, five or six months, sometimes at the end being acquitted or given a non-custodial sentence.
      Mr. Ernie Money: Another worrying factor is that someone who is not going to serve a custodial sentence is extremely likely in the meantime to lose his job as a result of his remand in custody.
      Mr. Mitchell: When a person is on remand in custody I imagine that unless he has a very good employer he will lose his job. Thus, if he is acquitted, not only has he spent a long time in prison but he has lost his job, and his family during that period will have had to suffer living on social security and the rest.
      The second point which persuades me in favour of new Clause 6 is that made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who said that it is important to put this guidance in legislative form because of the different practice as between one court and another. My lawyer friends will say that if one goes to court A one will get bail but in Court B one will get a remand in custody for the same type of offence. We know that certain magistrates, although they will not admit it, tend to look upon a remand in custody as, in effect, a punishment. For these two reasons, I support new Clause 6.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: These two new Clauses are a good example of what is, I believe, rather a bad habit in Parliament—attempting to fetter unreasonably the discretion of the courts, in this case by requiring the more liberal grant of bail. They attempt to do so by detailed specifications and instructions to the courts. Yet all these matters are at present taken into consideration by the courts. No one with knowledge of the way our courts work would claim that it would make the slightest difference to put these instructions into the Bill rather than in the present form of administrative instructions or advice.
      The fact is that Parliament has not provided the courts with the means of remedying the underlying evil, which is the overcrowding of the lists. If cases were brought on for trial soon after the arrest of the accused, we should not be

      637
      so concerned about bail. We should attack this evil much more vigorously and leave the question of bail to the good sense of the courts. In the Courts Act we have provided a more expeditious means of bringing to trial cases which come before Crown Courts. But they deal with only 5 per cent. or less of all criminal cases. It is time now to tackle the 95 per cent. of cases heard by magistrates and to make sure the magistrates have a means of bringing the cases on expeditiously. Then we shall not hear so much complaint about the refusal of bail.
      12.30 a.m.
      Mr. Peter Archer: I would like to add my protest to that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. Csilkin) about the late hour at which the House is being called upon to debate these matters and the inevitable pressure in consequence to curtail the discussion
      There is sometimes a tendency among those who manage these matters to think that penal reform is the concern only of the lawyers, and perhaps it could be placed on the record that the very substantial attendance tonight of hon. Members who are not lawyers indicates that this is a wholly false view. The reform would not benefit lawyers. They are not normally called upon to remain in a remand prison awaiting trial unconvicted.
      Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I wish they were.
      Mr. Archer: Some of my hon. Friends may take a different view. But even my hon. Friends will not remain unmoved by the reflection that every year 50,000 of our constituents who are not lawyers are placed in this position. It is a matter of some importance and it deserves to be taken seriously.
      The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) puzzled me by advancing what I understood to be two arguments against the new Clause. He said that it was an unnecessary fetter on the discretion of the courts and was, therefore, to be deplored. Almost immediately afterwards he said that it would not make a ha' porth of difference to the way the courts administered the system of deciding on bail. I will not comment further on the argument. The juxtaposition of the hon. Member's two sen-
      638
      tences was quite sufficient to answer his own argument.
      I was privileged to raise some of these matters in an Adjournment debate on 26th May. I was very grateful to the Under-Secretary for the forthright way in which he answered at least some of the suggestions which were made about the administrative contribution which could be made to the solution of the problem. We discussed the unhappy conditions referred to by some of my hon. Friends tonight, in which many people spend weeks, and sometimes months in custody unconvioted and sometimes still unconvioted after trial, and in many cases genuinely innocent of any offence. It does not help to point to the alarming crime wave when we are discussing people who at the moment have not committed any crime.
      In that debate we discussed the appalling delays before these cases are heard. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), who was impressed by the number of people who commit offences while on bail, has already been answered by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). If anyone is impressed by that figure he should consider that it could be reduced substantially if we reduced the amount of time people spent waiting for their cases to come up for trial.
      If that time lag were reduced it would reduce the figure as a statistic, but I do not believe that anyone can seriously seek to argue that because some commit offences while they are on bail, everyone should be refused bail as a general principle. We spent most of that Adjournment debate discussing the actual principle to be applied by the courts in de ciding whether to grant bail, and I would have thought that there was nothing between the two sides of the House on that matter tonight.
      Mr. Awdry: That is an unfair point against me. I have never suggested at any time that most applications should be refused. That was never my argument. My argument was that we should take into account this report published today in deciding what to do tonight.
      Mr. Archer: If what the hon. Member was suggesting is relevant at all, it seems to me that it can only be relevant

      639
      when directed to that argument. If it had some other relevance, it escaped me.
      Going back to what was said by the Under-Secretary on 26th May, that would put out of court any difference of principle. He said:
      "…the Government accept absolutely that the number of accused persons detained before trial should be the minimum, compatible with the interests of justice."—[Official Report, 26th May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1865.]
      As a formulation we would all accept that. We spent most of our time discussing the difficulties which face the courts, particularly as illustrated by Professor Gibbens, in the foreword to the Annual Report of the Howard League for 1969–70.
      First, on the question of obtaining medical reports, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), admittedly the Government are trying to find a solution to this. The Under-Secretary referred to the scheme at Holloway and said that that scheme had been expanded to include other prisons serving the London courts and would be extended to some parts of the provinces. We heard, too, how young people waiting for a report on their fitness for detention centre would be kept for examination on the spot by the police surgeon.
      But it is useless having these administrative procedures available, if the courts cannot be persuaded to make use of them, and in the first five months of the Holloway scheme it was used on only one occasion. If the Government are to rely on administrative measures of that kind they will have to initiate a massive education of some of the courts which are asked to administer the scheme.
      Secondly, Professor Gibbens illustrated the position of people remanded in custody simply because if released on bail they would have nowhere to go. It is true that the hon. Gentleman was able to tell the House that the Government had taken part in at least one pilot scheme with the Salvation Army, for the opening of a bail hostel at Booth House, but this is only the beginning of the exploration of how this problem can be met. It would not do to say that we must await the result of these schemes all over the country before the problem can be settled.
      640
      Finally, we spoke of the difficulty of people remanded in custody because they could not find satisfactory surety. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) when he spoke of the necessity for asking to see the colour of people's money before releasing on bail. I am not sure what contribution money or the promise of money is likely to make to ensuring that people attend for their trial. There may be a case where it makes a marginal contribution in deciding whether a man is likely to appear for trial, but money is a marginal consideration—
      Mr. Crowder: Has the hon. and learned Member not been in the position of trying to get bail for a client who is in a position to put forward considerable sums of money, and has he not thought that in putting the money down he might be able to convince the court or judge that it was a bona fide request from a man with no previous conviction who was prepared to stand trial? It might help some of us in trying to get bail if we could, in those circumstances, put the money on the table.
      Mr. Archer: I would not dissent from that as a proposition as to how the courts operate at present. But I would have thought we might try to persuade them to give less effect to this consideration when deciding to grant bail in future. Perhaps there is not so much between us.
      Mr. Crowder indicated assent.
      Unhappily, it is too late tonight to elaborate further on these problems, and this is an unhappy fact, because there is still a great deal requiring to be said. I cannot help feeling that some courts still give the impression that they rather enjoy sending people to prison. I say that from experience. Of course, there are many more courts which have a much better standard but there are still some which give people that impression. I cannot help feeling that in requiring us to debate the matter at this late hour the Government have given an indication that they are indifferent to the problem.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) and

      641
      found myself in a great deal of agreement with him until his last remark, which was quite an unworthy allegation to make. I do not think that courts basically enjoy that kind of thing.
      Mr. Joseph Harper: My hon. and learned Friend did not say that.
      Mr. Fowler: I do not think that anyone, even the Opposition Whip, who has just arrived, would deny the seriousness of the question we are trying to debate. Surely the most significant figure that has been put forward about bail is that almost half of those who are denied bail are subsequently either acquitted or, more often than not, are not sent to prison. I realise that qualifications have to be made to that statement. Nevertheless, as a guiding principle that is clearly an unacceptable proportion.
      I say that for two major reasons. First, prison must essentially be a place of last resort. It must be reserved for the undoubted criminal. Prison should be the severest punishment that the court can offer. It should not be used as a kind of social dustbin when the State can think of no other way of dealing with a particular man, and it should not be used when some other form of punishment is available. Secondly, it should not be used unnecessarily, because it blunts the effect of prison. It means that the prison staff are diverted from their main task.
      With prisons already overstrained it is not reasonable to ask the prison staffs to do more. This is worth emphasising in the present context of unrest in some prisons. There is no doubt that in the last few years prisons have become overstrained. It should be made clear that this is not a problem that has suddenly grown up overnight. It has been with us for some time. We have known of the defects in prisons for a long time; we have known of the defects in Brixton for a long time; and we have known about the overcrowding and the inadequate buildings. What has prevented and still prevents even greater problems in our prisons is the efforts of the prison officers, governors and assistant governors. I am not sure that their efforts over the past decade have been sufficiently appreciated or that we have appreciated the difficulties under which they work. It is not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination.
      642
      What we can do is to try not to make the job more difficult. That is why it is important that we should not add unnecessarily to the burden. If we could improve the bail system, this is something which will add to the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole prison system. In principle, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Clause moved so moderately by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). What I doubt is whether this Clause will have the effect which is intended. I believe that the problem needs a more complete approach than that provided by the Clause.
      12.45 a.m.
      One of the extraordinary features of this debate has been the lack of basic information necessary for the matter to be discussed intelligently. The Government have set up a working party to consider the workings of bail, but it should have been done several years ago. The last Home Office report on bail was that of its Research Unit in1960. There have been private reports by people like Michael Zander and the Cobden Trust. But the researcher is still driven back to the 1960 report of the Home Office Research Unit, and that does not reflect much credit on our efforts over the last decade.
      This Amendment, even on the basis of present knowledge, does not really go to the heart of the problem. If an attempt were made to isolate one reason for the present situation, I believe that it would be that our courts do not have the necessary information upon which to base their decisions and judge whether they should give bail. This is where I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton. It is not that the courts want to remand in custody. All too often they do not have adequate information to justify bail.
      Mr. Peter Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the report by Mr. Michael Zander in the Criminal Law Review indicates that in some cases there is a lack of curiosity on the part of courts to discover the necessary information?
      Mr. Fowler: That may be so. However, in my view the essential message flowing from the reports of Michael Zander and the Cobden Trust is that not enough information is presented to our

      643
      courts when they are making their decisions.
      Mr. Money: One very grave difficulty here is that so many of those who are refused bail and are kept in custody are not represented. What is more, in the absence of any form of legal aid to apply to a judge in chambers the situation is intolerable for the unrepresented defendant.
      Mr. Fowler: Clearly, that is an important point. However, I shall keep to my theme, though legal aid is a matter that I intended to mention. Basically, I ask for more information to be presented to courts. They want to know much more about a man's previous record, whether he has a steady job, about his family ties, and how long he has lived in the area concerned. Certainly if an accused person is legally represented, he stands a better chance of getting bail. But even that is not an invariable rule. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot help thinking that sometimes lawyers do not present to courts adequate information about those whom they represent—
      Mr. Money: Oh!
      Mr. Fowler: As a matter of course, courts should have adequate information upon which to base their decisions.
      Reinforcing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), I believe that courts should also know the police attitude to bail. After all, the police have a legitimate interest. They do not want to spend time searching for a person for whom perhaps they have spent a considerable time searching in any event. Least of all do they want a situation when someone on bail commits a further offence.
      Although there is a clear need for reform, there are many important and serious issues which should be taken into account. Action should be taken when the working party which has been set up gives us the opportunity to take action. We should wait, I hope in confident belief, that the working party will recognise the urgency of the question that it is examining, and that there will be no unreasonable delay in presenting its report to the Home Office.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: I have been horrified at the
      644
      manner in which this issue is being discussed. We are talking about people and their problems.
      The Home Secretary and I have had constant correspondence about certain cases. I will describe the case of Timothy Regan, which clearly identifies this problem. This is an interesting story. Timothy Regan was apprehended on 7th September, 1971, and remanded in custody. He was brought for trial on 17th November, having been remanded in custody until that date. His trial was then adjourned until 21st February, 1972. By that time I was having discussions with the Minister of State and his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I was told by the Lord Chancellor that the reason for this awfully long delay was that the trial was expected to take six weeks. The reason why this man was incarcerated during that time was that it was not possible to find a high court judge who could sit long enough to hear the case.
      The Lord Chancellor then told me that this was a serious case which greatly concerned him. The man was alleged to have robbed and conspired to rob and under those circumstances the case had been listed for the high court. In all the circumstances he did not think that the delay was unreasonable. In the end the man was acquitted in March. 1972. Timothy Regan had spent six months incarcerated. The Lord Chancellor was satisfied that, whilst he had been incarcerated for six months, that was not an unreasonable delay.
      When I was discussing the matter with the Minister of State he kindly and courteously explained to me the problem. He said that the delay was due to the fact that there was a congestion of business in the courts. He said that, whilst it was difficult, he assured me that he and the Home Secretary could not intervene in the matter. He said that he was sorry, wringing his hands in sorrow and saying how bad it was. But it was Timothy Regan who had been incarcerated. It was found six months later that he was not guilty, and then he was released.
      I have something else to tell the House. When I raised this matter with the Minister and the Lord Chancellor, they were aware that they had had this man from 7th September, 1971, in category A, locked in his cell for 23½ hours a day

      645
      for six months. It was absolutely outrageous. The Home Secretary said he was sorry but he could not do anything about it. The Lord Chancellor said that it was not unreasonable, that a high court judge could not be found to sit long enough.
      It is quite reasonable for the House to debate this issue when, clearly, both the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary are utterly unable to deal with serious cases like this. My constituent has lost his job, his home and his family. He has nothing. When I asked the Home Secretary what he was going to do about it, he was going to do nothing. How can any hon. Member, whatever the hour, treat this matter lightly or academically?
      Timothy Regan is a man of good repute who has now served six months in prison for no reason whatsoever. He had committed no crime, he was treated as a category "A" prisoner, incarcerated almost in solitary confinement, and nobody could do anything about it. The new Clause goes some way to prevent the Timothy Regans of this world being put in gaol without any cause or complaint.
      Mr. Money: I shall support the new Clause for four reasons.
      First, I do so for the reason expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), that we are making the effective reform of prisons quite impossible because we are overloading them with large numbers of people who ought not to be there at all.
      Secondly, there is an economic reason: that every time anybody is kept in custody for other than the most inevitable of reasons the State fines itself a very large sum of money indeed.
      The third reason is that the remand conditions in which most prisoners are kept are, for a civilised country, utterly intolerable.
      Fourthly, the circumstances in which an application to vary an arbitrary decision, made in the majority of cases by a non-qualified court, are heavily weighted against most prisoners.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I agree almost entirely with the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). I know the hon. Gentleman has taken a profound interest in the subject of bail.
      646
      His approach was distinctly more helpful than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). The hon. Gentleman correctly said that by itself the new Clause will not cure all the defects. That is right, because the new Clause depends upon the ability of courts to administer the bail provisions satisfactorily and wisely.
      The mere fact that administrative reforms are and will continue to be needed docs not disentitle this House from taking the view that it is essential that the law needs to be changed and improved. In my view, this is what the Clause does.
      I speak from some measure of practical experience. The Clause gives an emphasis which does not sufficiently exist to a presumption in favour of bail. It offers guidelines which do not satisfactorily exist now.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, South referred to information not being available to courts. That is surely a matter for the courts themselves. A court which is careful in its detail and approach towards bail will seek out the information and afford legal aid. But a court which is rushed, which has a heavy list, may not be desperately interested in ferreting out all the necessary information about a man's background, family, job, and prospects if he is denied bail. This is the fault of the courts. I agree that the Clause will not cure the courts which fail to take a positive approach to these matters.
      I refer to the hon. Member for Chippenham who, like myself, is a solicitor and a joint secretary of the all-party solicitors group. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman sought to adduce the argument that a change of this character would be resented by the police. I suppose he was saying in rather more sophisticated language what those two anonymous C.I.D. officers said in an interview with The Times last August:
      "It is frustrating when you arrest a man against great odds and then have a strong plea for custody turned down. Even if bail is refused the man can appeal to a judge and if it is a vacation judge with little or no experience in the field of crime he will say: 'Well, if will be six months before the case carries up; what about the liberty of the individual?' and give him bail. Then the man goes off and commits another crime so that he can afford the lawyer who will defend him on the first one."

      647
      That is often said by members of the public, but it is sad when generalisations like that are boldly made by police officers who should know better. Seventy-nine per cent. of the objections made by the police to bail are upheld by the courts.
      1.0 a.m.
      It is right that we should investigate administrative defects at the same time. On 26th May I raised with the Minister of State and with the Under-Secretary the question of how the Department's circular of 14th May, 1971, was operating. That was a circular requiring a governor to inform courts when reports were ready so that a hearing could be expedited or the court would be able to consider releasing the defendant on bail pending a hearing if there was to be further delay. This is the reply I received:
      "The results have been disappointing, mainly because of the difficulty which courts find in bringing together all the people concerned in a case on a date earlier than one which has already been fixed. The courts will be encouraged to adopt 14 days instead of 21 days as the normal period for remand where local probation resources are sufficient for reports to be prepared within the shorter period."
      That answer is not very helpful. The circular has been in existence for a year. Practical experience teaches us that few courts and few prisons take advantage of it. The mere fact that the period will be reduced will not help greatly, because doctors, for instance, will say that the reports are not available.
      This is a matter which must cause some degree of disquiet. I am not satisfied that all courts apply all the principles enunciated in the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, although the hon. Member for Chippenham thinks that they do. I still believe that many courts do not accept even the presumption of innocence. Many courts accept passively anything that the police say in objection to bail.
      One of my colleagues appearing at Willesden made an application for bail and was told by the chairman of the bench "On the advice of the police, we refuse bail." It was as simple as that. My colleague was told, in effect, that he was guilty of effrontery for suggesting that the police could be wrong.
      648
      Some courts fail to give proper consideration to all the reasons which should justify the granting of bail. Some courts impose, unquestionably, the most harsh terms in connection with bail. I will quote an example of this which occurred to some of my constituents who appeared at Old Street Magistrates' Court before Mr. Neil McElligott not very long ago. The defendants were members of what is known as the Claimants Union. Mr. McElligott happens not to like certain members of the Claimants Union. They were alleged to have done damage to property amounting to not more than £100. Each was bound over in his own recognisance of £100 and was required to find sureties of £250, although the police were not asking for such terms. They found the sureties and were granted bail.
      At the committal proceedings the police still did not object to bail and still did not require these harsh terms, but the learned magistrate decided that these terms were not sufficient and that they would have to report daily at the police station although there had been no complaints by the police about them and there had been no requirements by the police. It just happened to be a matter of whim, in my submission, on the part of the particular magistrate. That is a disgraceful state of affairs. Of course he did not take the trouble to investigate the matter in sufficient detail.
      On new Clause 8 there is a matter which affects one of my constituents. It is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) referred in passing. It affects the case of Mr. Errol Folkes, who lives in Dalston, in my constituency. He was kept in a remand home and then in a detention centre from 9th September, 1971, to 7th March this year. Indeed, had it not been for the intervention of a black community welfare organisation it is probable that he would have remained in detention for another two months. The sad chronicle of events affecting this constituent were these.
      He went to Dalston Police Station in order to discuss a certain matter with the police, and he was told then that the police had been looking for him since October, 1970, and he was charged with entering a flat as a trespasser with intent to steal. He appeared at North London magistrates' court the following day and

      649
      was remanded on bail in the sum of £50 in his own recognisance and he had to provide a surety of £50, which was forthcoming; namely from his sister.
      He was granted legal aid, and his case was listed for hearing at the Inner London Crown Court within two months because it was thought, erroneously, that he was going to plead guilty. He had no intention of doing so. He pleaded not guilty when he appeared at the court, and then his case was adjourned and he was granted bail on the same terms as before. The difficulty then was that his sister, who was a nurse, was on her duties in hospital and could not attend the court. So he was remanded in custody.
      He had to spend the next few days in the cells because his sister was unable to leave the hospital. His sister made a large number of inquiries about how she could make herself available as a surety and she went from Dalston Police Station to the court and Inner London Crown Court and she was constantly put off. It seems somehow or other that nobody seemed to want to know about this man still languishing in jail.
      He was at Ashford Remand Centre. Apparently some complaints were made about his legal representation as well, but the fact was that the sister, this poor girl, was so completely bemused, that she did not know where to turn to discover how this man could be released. Then he was taken to Latchmere House Detention Centre.
      Eventually, after all this time, a community organisation intervened, and the man was released. But he had been acquitted, and that is why he was ultimately released.
      Lord Dunboyne, the judge at the time, had this to say:
      "The whole thing is horrifying. I am ordering that the matter be reported to the Home Secretary."
      One does not know at this moment what the Home Secretary has done. I think we are entitled to know tonight that the Home Secretary is actively intervening in this matter to ensure that justice is done to this man. Clearly, this man has been denied justice to which he was entitled in exactly the same way as Thomas Regan, a constituent of my hon. Friend, also has been denied justice.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I do not dispute many of the facts mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but, in fairness, he should tell the House that apparently the defendant had a solicitor acting for him the whole time.
      Mr. Davis: I referred to that. I said that allegations of negligence were being made in the case. I do not know the details, but the fact remains that the Home Office should actively and immediately investigate the matter since a complaint has been made by the learned judge. This is just the sort of case that would be dealt with adequately by new Clause 8, and an enormously strong case has already been made for it by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). There is a good deal wrong with the procedure for granting bail, and I fear that the Home Office is far too complacent.
      Mr. John Loveridge: I hope that the Government will give careful thought to the question of bail as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety and concern over it.
      I was very pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) commend the efficiency of magistrates, particulary so since I sat on a lay bench for a number of years. It is a most efficient system of bringing justice to the public, but if there is one place where it has a weakness, it is on the question of bail.
      My hon. and learned Friend went on to say that a farmer in Devon who was sitting on the bench would know how to handle the question of bail. I am sure that in that he is correct, because a farmer in Devon sitting on a lay bench would have far more time than any lay magistrate in a busy London court, and it is here that the difficulty arises.
      Often adequate time is not given by benches to consider the question of bail at the point when the issue arises. If the principles put forward in the new Clause were to be embodied in the legislation it would ensure that full consideration could be given to the matter in a formal manner because of the formal delay which the legislation would bring to the court.

      651
      The police often oppose bail and no questions are asked. The police may not be asked whether the man has a record. They may not be asked why they oppose bail. An experienced magistrate—and it requires a certain persistence for a magistrate to achieve this, especially if he is not in the chair—will always intervene at that point to ask the police officer questions. Too many magistrates do not do that and the speed of the process, without any formal delay at that point, enables the questions to go by default.
      Although I am not happy with the Clause as it stands, I accept the principles that are expressed in it, and I hope that the Government will take some action to add it to the legislation.
      Mr. Edward Lyons: The two main considerations for bail are, first, to keep people out of prison who should not be there, and, secondly, to reduce overcrowding among the prison population.
      Though most of our great prisons are more than 100 years old, the Government are planning to close only one—that at Oxford in 1980. That means that despite the enlarged prison building programme the Government feel that there will be prison overcrowding which will prevent them from dispensing with old prisons such as the one at Leeds for probably another 20 or 30 years.
      1.15 a.m.
      In these circumstances it behoves us to see whether people are being denied bail who should get it. Two points arise in a report in the Criminal Law Review which indicates that people who should get bail are being denied it. First, when the police oppose bail the stipendiary magistrates grant it twice as often as lay magistrates. That shows that lay magistrates are a little shy of disagreeing with the police. Second, where the police oppose bail, accused who are represented by lawyers have twice the chance of getting it compared with those who are not represented. That shows that lay magistrates require to be stiffened in their resolve to resist the police on proper occasions by defence lawyers. Two-thirds of all people considered for bail are not represented by a lawyer. It follows that if all people wanting bail
      652
      which the police oppose were represented by lawyers the numbers of people going into temporary custody would be substantially reduced.
      There is, therefore, great need, in the absence of lawyers for everybody, for the law to be clearly stated, and the advantage of the new Clause so ably worded by my right hon. and learned Friend is that it states that there should be a presumption in favour of bail unless that presumption is successfully challenged.
      My final point relates to people of no fixed abode. Probably the largest category of people who are remanded in custody are those with no fixed abode. The only consideration for them is, will they or will they not abscond? Section 18 of the 1967 Acts says that no fixed abode is a consideration to be taken into account, and it is perhaps the reason most commonly given by the police for objecting to bail. Too many magistrates take the view that if a man has no fixed abode he should go to prison. That really is not good enough. It means using prisons as common lodging houses—with bars.
      In these circumstances we should make a fresh approach, and we need the law clearly set out for lay magistrates who need stiffening in dealing with police objections.
      Mr. Neville Sandelson: I am in substantial agreement with almost everything my hon. Friend has said, but I wonder if he would clarify this one point. Where does he think a defendant with no fixed abode should be sent by the magistrates? I do not ask that in any way to derogate from the force of my hon. Friend's arguments, but would my hon. Friend explain that to the House?
      Mr. Lyons: The answer, clearly, is that there should be bail hostels, but often, even that would not be the answer because a man who is in lodgings may be labelled as of no fixed abode, and, anyway, if a man wishes to abscond, he can abscond from a permanent address just as he can from a temporary one. Considering that many of the offences for which people are remanded in custody are relatively minor ones, it is wrong to regard the description of no fixed abode as a passport to temporary imprisonment.
      Mr. Michael Havers: I oppose this new Clause on the general principle that I do not like to see the

      653
      discretion of the court restricted. The considerations advanced so far for the Clause are not wide enough. One must consider how serious the crime is. There has been talk of interference with witnesses. One finds witnesses who are frightened. There may be large sums of money involved. There has been no real consideration of the gravity of the crime. The new Clause does not deal with these matters. It is late and I do not propose to say any more about that.
      However, I should like to say something about the two cases with which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) dealt. He spoke of the chairman of Willesden magistrates court whom he criticised for accepting police evidence when it was unfavourable to the defendant. Then he spoke about the learned stipendiary magistrate at Old Street and criticised him for not accepting police evidence when it was favourable to the defendant. It is very strange that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to calculate for a moment that a magistrate should have independence of mind about his decision.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen the force of what I said about the chairman of Willesden magistrates. What he indicated was that the defending lawyer had some effrontery in even suggesting that the police could be wrong.
      Mr. Havers: The point I sought to make was simply this. The hon. Gentleman says that if the police at the Willesden court say that a man should not be given bail he need not accept it; because the police at Old Street do not oppose bail Mr. McElligott must grant it. That must be nonsense, otherwise there is no point in having magistrates.
      Dame Irene Ward: There is only one point I should like my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to answer. As a lay magistrate, I may require stiffening; but many people, particularly among hon. Gentlemen opposite, require more stiffening than I require.
      It horrifies me that in all the arguments adduced on both sides of the House by people who are experienced in these matters nobody has mentioned one of the most devastating problems about bail. Many men and women who are brought to trial are subnormal. This presents
      654
      considerable difficulty. One of the most disturbing features is that many of these poor, unfortunate creatures have very little knowledge of procedure.
      I wonder how in our legal system we can provide the human treatment which is necessary for these people. Often the offences which they commit are committed because they are not in full possession of their senses. In any inquiry into the courts, bail, legal representation, and so on, we must give attention to the number of subnormal people who come before the courts and who make it very difficult for magistrates to make a reasonable, sensible and humane decision.
      I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will have some sympathy with magistrates who have to deal with subnormal people. I am a strong advocate of effective treatment for real criminals, but we must find a satisfactory way of dealing humanely with those who are subnormal.
      Mr. Carlisle: We dealt with the whole subject of bail fully in Committee and we have returned to it tonight. I do not for a moment regret the fact that we have gone over much of the same ground as we went over in Committee and that hon. Members who did not have an opportunity to take part in our Committee deliberations have had an opportunity to express their views on the subject.
      I of course accept that the whole question of bail—the question of the remand in custody of those who are deemed to be innocent until roved guilty—is important. It is undoubtedly important for the individual who is deprived of bail and is remanded in custody and I fully accept what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said about the grave hardship that this must mean to a man who is remanded in custody and who is then found to be not guilty of any offence. It is equally important from the point of view of those who are responsible for the prison population of this country.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out, we are faced with a severe problem of over crowding in our prisons, and it is greatest in the local prisons where remands take place. One cannot have been involved

      655
      at the Home Office for two years without being conscious of the fact that about 10 per cent. of the prison population at any one time is unconvicted or unsen-tenced. I therefore accept that this is an important question and that people should be concerned about whether the right criteria are being used in the granting of bail.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said, this is an equally important matter for society because just as it is important that people should not be remanded in custody who could rightly be remanded on bail, so it is equally important that there should not be people freely remanded on bail if, having been committed on serious charges, they might commit other offences while awaiting trial.
      No hon. Member wishes to see people being unnecessarily remanded in custody and of course I accept, as I said in Committee and as my hon. Friend said when answering a recent Adjournment debate, and the Home Office accepts, that bail should always be granted in appropriate cases. I go further and say that I do not believe that anybody seriously disputes the principles set out in the proposed new Clause as the basis or grounds on which the question of bail or custody should be judged.
      Where the area of disagreement between us lies, if it is genuine disagreement, is, first, that I cannot accept what seems to be underlying all the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite—the suggestion that people are being wantonly remanded in custody when they should be on bail. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) say that there were courts which gave the impression that they enjoyed sending people to prison. That was not a fair assessment of the courts, either lay or those with qualified chairmen.
      I do not believe that anybody who has appeared in our courts and has had the experience, which I have not had, of sitting as a magistrate has enjoyed the experience of either sending people to prison or remanding them in custody. I do not accept that that is done wantonly.
      Mr. Peter Archer: I said that some courts gave that impression. If the hon.
      656
      and learned Gentleman has never met anyone who has left a court with that impression, I am amazed.
      1.30 a.m.
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. and learned Gentleman said "some" but, with respect, he said it in a way that rather implied that there were courts which just happily sent people to prison without caring about it. I do not accept that that is so.
      The second area of disagreement—it seems the only one that is to matter if we are to vote on the new Clause tonight—is that neither I nor the Government accept that imposing further statutory restrictions on the courts in remanding people in custody, particularly in as complicated a method as the new Clause devises, will achieve the end which the sponsors of the new Clause desire. Further statutory restrictions will not make a substantial difference to the number of people being remanded on bail or remanded in custody.
      Mr. Money: Will my hon. and learned Friend deal with the frightening question raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), of the defendant of no fixed abode who appears for the most trivial offences, such as drunk and disorderly or malicious damage, and who in those circumstances is remanded in custody because he is of no fixed abode when society does not necessarily worry about the fact that he does not have a fixed abode when he is brought before the court?
      Mr. Carlisle: With respect to my hon. Friend, I have sat in the Chamber for two hours and 20 minutes and I have been speaking for only about three minutes so far. I was coming to that point.
      But before that, I make a general observation. Despite what has been said from both sides of the House, the proportion of those remanded who are remanded on bail is rising each year and the proportion of those remanded who are remanded in custody is becoming smaller. I believe and have always believed that there has to be a far greater future in, firstly, attempting to reduce the time people spend in custody on remand. I take up the points made about that by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and

      657
      by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Far more is to be gained by attempting to provide alternative facilities rather than trying to impose, as the new Clause does, further statutory restrictions on the courts.
      We have made it clear that we are concerned about this. Through administrative action we are dealing with the type of wider facilities to provide, for example, for many of the reports on people, which today are made when they are in custody, to be made in future when they are on bail.
      I remind the House of the administrative actions we have taken in this matter. I come at once to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) asked me to take up, that is, the question raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) about the man who is remanded in custody because he is of no fixed abode. I do not believe that the provisions of the new Clause will seriously influence magistrates in deciding whether to remand such a person in custody. It is far more important that we should have available in this country a system of bail hostels, so that there is a place to which that person of no fixed abode can be remanded. I am bound to remind the hon. Gentleman that no only did my right hon. Friend last year open the first-ever bail hostel in this country but that the Bill provides by Clause 43, for the first time, power for the Government to grant-aid hostels to be provided for this purpose. I believe it is far more important to have administrative action to deal with such matters than merely to pass new Clauses of this nature.
      Comments have been made about medical reports. I remind the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) and others that we have over the last two years provided for out-patient facilities to be available at Holloway Prison. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) says that there are not enough of them and those that are available are not being used. Of course, when one provides something for the first time it obviously, as I said in Committee, takes a certain time for the courts to get used to the fact that the facilities are available. At least we are entitled to take some credit for the fact that we have these facilities, which were not available 18
      658
      months ago. We are proposing shortly to extend them to Brixton Prison, so that the courts in the London area when remanding people for medical reports will be able to do so for the first time on bail rather than remand in custody.
      Then, as hon. Member for Hackney, Central agreed, although he said we had not done much about it, we have requested prison governors to inform the court when a report is available so that the case can come rapidly back before the court. As the hon. Gentleman also said, in practice we have found that this is not terribly satisfactory, since it is difficult to get together again all the people concerned in hearing the case when it was remanded. But we have asked that there should be remands not for 21 days, as in the past, but for 14 days because reports can be available in that time.
      With the provisions given to the courts and to use bail hostels and outpatient facilities when considering remands, and with the passing of the Courts Act, which we all support—for this is a non-party matter—in the hope that it will succeed in ridding us of some of the delays to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen called attention, we believe that we are making a far more important contribution than would the terms of new Clause 6.
      I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) said so eloquently about his constituent. But I do not believe that there is a single word in new Clause 6 that could in any way have prevented his constituent's experience. What is much more important is if we can reduce the time between committal for trial and the date of the trial. That is what will help and not the passing of a new Clause bringing in a thing called the "bail question", which would mean that every time a defendant appeared for remand the magistrate, knowing the nature of the offence, would have to ask him whether he wished to have bail although that magistrate would know that he would refuse such application.
      Mr. Jeffrey Thomas (Abertillery): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many bail hostels are available at the moment and how many are planned throughout the country in the next twelve months?
      Mr. Carlisle: There is one in the country, which was opened by my right hon. Friend, and for the first time this Bill gives the Government power, which no Government had before, to grant aid for the provision of future bail hostels. We believe there is need for this and we are tackling that need, which had not previously been tackled.
      A feeling seems to have crept into the debate that many of the problems of delay which the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury mentioned would in the courts somehow be affected or dealt with by new Clause 6. I do not believe it. The new Clause seems to attempt to do three things. First, it attempts to set out in statutory form very much of what is in the 1967 Act as the principles on which bail is granted or refused. The hon. Gentleman said these were deficient because they did not deal with the question of interference with witnesses. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) pointed out, there may be other conditions but no one doubts that this is the sort of thing the courts consider.
      Secondly, the new Clause raises that strange animal called the "bail question." which means that everyone on every remand must always be asked whether he wishes to apply for bail. I repeat what I said in Committee, although I was criticised for it then—that it surely entails something of a cat and mouse existence if the magistrates are to be invited to ask a defendant, "Do you wish to apply for bail?" when it is clear that they propose to refuse it if he does apply. I do not see any purpose in the question having to be asked on that occasion.
      Finally it attempts to provide for the wider application of legal aid on bail applications, and this is a serious problem. To that I would say two things. I think the Opposition have under-estimated the fact that under the provisions of the Courts Act anyone who is committed for trial—and it is on the committals for trial that the seriously long periods of remands in custody occur—has the right on committal to appeal against the refusal of bail to the court of trial, and his legal aid certificate, if granted for him for that trial, covers that appeal. I believe that will be a more satisfactory method of appeal than the need in the past to appeal to a judge in chambers, which usually
      660
      means a judge in London, irrespective of the court at which the person is committed.
      I believe that the Opposition have overlooked the provisions of the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill which will enable the courts to invite a solicitor who is in the precincts of the court to appear under the £25 scheme if any defendant appears before them unrepresented. It is quite clear that he can make an application for bail on that person's behalf and advise him as to his rights. Therefore I do not believe that the genuine concern often expressed about the need for legal aid to appeal to a judge in chambers is anywhere near as great now, as a result of the Courts Act, as it was in the past, and I believe that the overwhelming argument of the lack of any sanction against everybody choosing to appeal so that the meritorious appeals get held up for longer periods far outweighs any need that exists.
      The purpose of new Clause 8 is that the Home Secretary should be notified that a person has been in custody for two or three months without being tried. I would not argue about the desire behind the Clause. We have arrangements now under which governors are asked to bring to the notice of the courts cases where people have been awaiting trial for substantial periods. As a result of the case raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central we must see whether the provisions are adequate and whether the safeguards are sufficient. But there is no point in a reference to the Home Secretary. He can do very little about it. What if a governor reports to the Home Secretary that someone has been awaiting trial for three months? The Home Secretary has no control over the lists at the Old Bailey or the Inner London Sessions, and he can do nothing. It would be better that the governor should report to the court administrators on cases that have been awaiting trial for a considerable period.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I wonder whether the Minister of State has not misunderstood the purpose of the new Clause. Part of the Home Secretary's responsibility is to oversee this whole question. How can he do so unless he gets the information? It is no use from that point of view for the governor to report to the court.
      1.45 a.m.
      Mr. Carlisle: I think, with respect, that probably the Home Secretary is always in a position to get that information. Parliamentary Questions often require the Home Secretary to produce it.
      I understand the purpose of specifically drawing to the attention of the Home Secretary cases of custody over a long period, but the purpose is presumably to get trials brought on more quickly and the Home Secretary has no power to do that. However, I would be prepared to consider whether we could make arrangements for governors of remand homes to draw to the attention of the new administrators under the Courts Act cases in which a long period has been spent on remand.
      The right hon. Member for Birken-head asked many questions. I concede at once, and I conceded reasonably handsomely to him, certainly in my letter, that I was wrong in the law I expressed, but I do not concede that I necessarily made the same mistake in Committee.
      Clearly, Section 18 of the 1967 Act covers remands after conviction and before sentence. I accept that, and that my statement to the contrary was wrong, but I do not accept that it follows that it covers all Section 14 applications for remand and that since there are so many therefore the courts cannot be applying Section 18(5) of the 1967 Act. The fallacy in the argument is that the right hon. Member ignored the fact that Section 18 is limited to cases which are summary cases or hybrid cases, and does not deal with indictable cases except where the accused is dealt with summarily. Unless these are included as summary cases rather than indictable cases, it is impossible to say whether Section 18 is adequately used.
      Mr. Dell: The Minister is indicating a fault in Section 18 which I pointed out in Committee, and which would be repaired by the new Clause, but which the Minister is refusing to repair. As for the implication of the admission of error, he drew that implication in Committee and he was therefore saying that he could not understand the extent of remanding in custody if Section 18 covered Section 14(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
      Mr. Carlisle: I do not want to get into a legal argument with the right hon. Member. I said that all Section 14 remands were covered by Section 18 of the 1967 Act. I should be the last to dispute the view expressed by many hon. Members today that a decision by the magistrates on whether bail should be granted is one of immense importance. I should be the last to dispute that where it is appropriated, bail should always be granted. In the judicial process I believe that there is, in practice, a bias in favour of bail and that there is a presumption for the individual who appears before the court, and that magistrates start by wishing to satisfy themselves, or feeling that they have to be satisfied, that they should remand a person in custody.
      This new Clause goes wrong because it is unduly complicated, unnecessary, and undesirable because it puts greater statutory fetters on what should be as freely as possible within the discretion of the courts. If we were concerned only about those remanded in custody in overcrowded conditions, this House would do better to concern itself with the need for a prison building programme to reduce overcrowding than with the need to provide bail hostels, and with the need to have administrative action to attempt to reduce the length of time people spend in custody rather than an attempt to fetter the courts further with provisions such as this new Clause.
      Sir Elwyn Jones: The fact that this debate has gone on for so long at this time is an indication of the importance that the House attaches to the subject. I suspect that the Home Secretary will feel it deplorable that we are having to debate this at this time in the morning. It is a reflection on the complete chaos of the Government's legislative programme. However, I do not want to introduce any party political observations, tempting as it is at this hour to do so, bearing in mind that in this serious and informed debate opinion across the Chamber has reflected the anxiety we all feel about the state of the law, described by one hon. Member as "unacceptable" and which I would describe as deplorable. It is deplorable because it is both unjust and inefficient.
      That is the message that has emerged from this debate. The statistical basis

      663
      for saying that the present system and the present state of the law is unjust and inefficient has been stated more than once. The statistics for 1970 show that in England and Wales 2,472 persons who were remanded in custody pending trial were found not guilty and 29,267 others did not receive an immediate or custodial sentence.
      I am not suggesting that all those 32,000 men and women should have been given bail. There could have been some unexpected acquittals. There may have emerged, in the case or during the time that they spent in custody, evidence not previously available which made a custodial sentence inappropriate. I am sure there is no doubt that in the majority of those cases remand in custody was both unnecessary and in its consequence unjust. I was impressed with some observations of Lord Justice Lawton, who is not exactly a "softie" in administration of justice, who some time ago said:
      "Loss of liberty is an inappropriate, useless and expensive sanction for about three-quarters of those who now find themselves in custody."
      That is certainly true as a general proposition; it is undoubtedly true of those who are remanded in custody awaiting trial. I thought that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) dismissed rather too lightly the injustice of this situation.
      It is sometimes said that these debates on the administration of justice are arid lawyers' picnics. It was admirable to hear the strident voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) saying that we are talking about human beings—men about whom it may be said "There but for the grace of God go I". This is the humane approach which has been reflected in this serious debate.
      That thousands of our fellow citizens are unnecessarily kept in the appalling conditions that exist, for instance, at Brix-ton, is intolerable and should not be tolerated longer. We support this Clause because it will help at least to diminish this state of affairs. We are not concerned with discussing the Brixton situation but no doubt in due course the Home Secretary will let us hear his views on the matters that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Ashford and others.
      664
      Of one thing I am sure. The greatest grievance that the men in Brixton are feeling is that they are being kept in custody for so long before their trial. That they should wait there for months and that many of them should be acquitted—that many of them are not sent to prison—leaves a bitter taste in their mouths in view of the basic principle of our criminal law that every man is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. I venture to think that this is the clue to the Brixton problem, and not merely the conditions which prevail there.
      This Amendment will help deal with the problem because it will make more likely the granting of more remands without custody. I agree that it will not solve the problem. Clearly, administrative measures like bail hostels and community service instead of incarceration are to be supported. But it is no use having excellent administrative arrangements while continuing to fill gaols unnecessarily in the way in which we are at present.
      The advantage of the new version of the present Section 18 of the 1967 Act is that it states the principles clearly and generally. So far from being an excessive restriction on the discretion of the court, it is really far less restrictive than the peg pointing provisions of Section 18, which is having precisely the effect of more people going to prison than need be, whereas the impetus of the draft that we propose will be exactly in the opposite direction. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, there is nothing revolutionary in what is proposed in the new Clause, and there is nothing which fails to take account of the protection of public safety. It is a most moderate and responsible draft. But it will concentrate the minds of magistrates' courts, where most of the problems arise, on the principles which should be applied, including the necessity of enabling the persons concerned to know that they have the right to apply for bail.
      It may be the fault of the lawyers, but it is extraordinary how rarely the citizen fully realises the rights that he has when it comes to the courts. I am inclined to favour the institution of the defending solicitor which is being tried so interestingly in Bristol. It is the case that the

      665
      bewildered, harassed citizen in court does not know where to turn and what his rights are, and I believe that it is right that we as a Parliament should set out a code of procedure that magistrates should follow. There is a great advantage in stating positively in an Act of Parliament, as we have done in this proposed Clause, that the presumption of the court shall be in favour of the grant of bail.
      What is of special importance in the Amendment is the necessity to extend the area of legal aid in respect of bail. The Minister of State drew a somewhat heavy veil over that part of the Clause. I found his reply very disappointing. He showed a sympathetic approach to these problems with great ability in Committee, where his contributions were quite outstanding on many occasions. I am profoundly disappointed by the speech that the Minister has made tonight. The proposals that we have, so far from over-elaborating and over-simplifying the powers of the courts, will amplify and
      simplify them. They will have the effect of concentrating the minds of the courts on the principles which the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently approves, as does his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
      To say that this will be of no assistance is an avoidance of the problem. It is because of our disappointment with him and the failure to seize an advantage that comes so rarely to us in having Criminal Justice Bills before the House that I advise the House to support these new Clauses in the Division Lobby. I hope that hon. and learned Members and hon. and non-learned Members on both sides of the House who have supported these Clauses will indicate that support in an effective way in the Division Lobby.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 151.

      Division No. 211.]

      AYES

      [2.0 a.m.

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Ashton, Joe

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hamling, William

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Bishop, E. S.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pentland, Norman

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Booth, Albert

      Horam, John

      Prescott, John

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

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

      Buchan, Norman

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

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roper, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rose, Paul B.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Lamborn, Harry

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Lamond, James

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cohen, Stanley

      Latham, Arthur

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Leonard, Dick

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Sillars, James

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Loughlin, Charles

      Skinner, Dennis

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

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      McBride, Neil

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      McElhone, Frank

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

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Deakins, Eric

      Maclennan, Robert

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

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Doig, Peter

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

      Varley, Eric G.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Marsden, F.

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Wellbeloved, James

      Dunn, James A.

      Meacher, Michael

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Eadie, Alex

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Whitehead, Phillip

      English, Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Evans, Fred

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Woof, Robert

      Ewing, Harry

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

      Faulds, Andrew

      Money, Ernle

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Foot, Michael

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Fraser. John (Norwood)

      Oakes, Gordon

      NOES

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Benyon, W.

      Bray, Ronald

      Astor, John

      Biffen, John

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Awdry, Daniel

      Boscawen, Robert

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Bryan, Paul

      Buck, Antony

      Hicks, Robert

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Burden, F. A.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Chapman, Sydney

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Percival, Ian

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hornby, Richard

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Raison, Timothy

      Clegg, Walter

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Cockeram, Eric

      James, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Cooke, Robert

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Coombs, Derek

      Jopling, Michael

      Sharples, Richard

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

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

      Crouch, David

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Crowder, F. P.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul

      Kinsey, J. R.

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

      Deedes Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Soref, Harold

      Dixon, Piers

      Knox, David

      Speed, Keith

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Lamont, Norman

      Spence, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lane, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Eden, Sir John

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Elliot, Cap). Walter (Carshalton)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

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

      Longden, Sir Gilbert

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Eyre, Reginald

      Loveridge, John

      Sutcliffe, John

      Farr, John

      McCrindle, R. A.

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

      Fell, Anthony

      McLaren, Martin

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fidler, Michael

      Maddan, Martin

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Madel, David

      Tilney, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mather, Carol

      Trew, Peter

      Fortescue, Tim

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fowler, Norman

      Mawby, Ray

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Fox, Marcus

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gardner, Edward

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Gibson-Watt, David

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

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Moate, Roger

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gower, Raymond

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Wilkinson, John

      Green, Alan

      Monro, Hector

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Morrison, Charles

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mudd, David

      Younger, Hn. George

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Murton, Oscar

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neave, Airey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Havers, Michael

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Mr. Hamish Grey and

      Hawkins, Paul

      Normanton, Tom

      Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

      Hayhoe. Barney

      Onslow, Cranley

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Maudling.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

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

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS)
  2.10 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: This morning I wish to raise the cases of a constituent of mine who was self-employed for 44½ years as a hairdresser. He ceased to trade on 6th May of this year because his premises formed part of the subject matter of a compulsory purchase order made by the local authority. Because he was unable to acquire suitable alternative premises, he registered for work at the employment exchange.
  Naturally my constituent received no unemployment benefit. In fact, he receives no benefit of any kind. The exchange retained his National Insurance card for consideration of franking. On 10th May the National Insurance card was returned along with a form CR6 stating that he was not entitled to have his card franked during his period of unemployment, and he was advised to buy National Insurance stamps at £1·20 each to protect his pension rights.
  My constituent inquired about this at the Department of Health and Social Security. He was given leaflet NI41 which was thoroughly explained to him by the interviewer, but the interviewer himself could find no reference to a self-employed person becoming unemployed in relation to either the value of the stamp he should buy or as to whether the card should be franked.
  Following this I wrote to the local office of the Department of Employment, and I received a reply the relevants parts of which are as follows:
  "I have made some enquiries into his case and find that within the regulations he is not entitled to credit of Class I contributions.
  …His contribution record for the contribution year which runs from 1st June. 1970, to 6th June, 1971, and which governs his title to unemployment benefit during the period 1st November. 1971. to 5th November. 1972, showed a total of 53 Class II (self-employed contributions). To be entitled to unemployment benefit he would have required among other things, to have paid at least 26 contributions as an employed person (Class I) during that period.
  "Since he did not in fact satisfy this condition, his claim was disallowed from 8th May, 1972, and he was notified to this effect. At the same time, he was notified that Class I contributions could not be credited because he
  670
  did not saetisfy any of the three revelant conditions.
  "These conditions are as follows:

  "1. At least 26 contributions as an employed person must have been paid by or credited to you in the contribution year ended 6.6.71; or

  "2. At least 10 contributions as an employed person must have been paid by or credited to you in the 13 weeks immediately before your period of unemployment began; or

  "3. You must have been employed in an employed contributors employment (Class I employment under the National Insurance Acts), before the period of unemployment began and must normally rely on such employment for your livelihood."

  What I would like to know, and have failed to find up to now—and I have been into the Library, and they could not tell me—is what requirements are referred to which contain these three conditions. Secondly, has the Minister power to waive these regulations or to change them?
  Thirdly, does the Minister recognise that these people will never qualify if these regulations are applicable as long as they are unable to obtain employment? It will go on right up until retirement age when they will get no benefit of any kind. Moreover, without any income of any kind to protect their pension, they are expected to pay out £l·20p every week until the time they are due for retirement.
  Does the Minister recognise the injustice of this to the self-employed person who, very often through no fault of his own as in this case, becomes unemployed? Will he please answer this question: what regulations are referred to? If he has power, will he use it to waive or to change these regulations in cases of this kind because of the injustice which people in this situation suffer?
  2.18 a.m.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: One of my own constituents who was self-employed became unemployed in June, 1970, and for a period of three months was unemployed. He then went to the employment exchange and registered, not expecting to get unemployment benefit, because he knew that a self-employed person was not entitled to that; but he thought that he would have his insurance stamps credited for a period of three months.

  671
  To his amazement—and perhaps the constituent should have known better—he found that he was not so entitled, for the reasons which my hon Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has pointed out. He still finds that he owes about 20 stamps. At that time the cost of the unemployment stamp was 19s. 10d. I am sure that if he pays them he will have to pay them at the new rate.
  The constituent is myself, who, as a Member of Parliament, is a self-employed person. Obviously in my case, because I got employment again in September, it does not involve a great deal of hardship. I know of a number of my constituents who have found themselves in the identical position to that which my hon. Friend pointed out, when their chances of obtaining employment are fairly limited. They may go on for a fairly long period of unemployment and the whole time they are still supposedly having to buy stamps at the non-employed rate, which involves considerable hardship.
  I should have thought—the Minister may be able to give me some hope—that it would be feasible to arrange, perhaps through the Ministry of Social Security, when a person applies for supplementary benefit for the stamp to be credited, because if it goes on for a long time—I still owe the Minister's Department some money, and I shall probably get a letter about it on Monday—it makes a considerable difference to the pension.
  2.19 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) for raising this point. I know that he has a particular case of a constituent in mind, to which he referred, and I fully understand the difficult position, and indeed sympathise with the position, of someone who loses his self-employment, in this case through no fault of his own but owing to the place in which he does his work being taken over for some other purpose.
  I will try to explain what the position is and to answer the questions which he has put to me, and also the additional points which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) put to me.
  672
  First, the regulations governing both the payment of unemployment benefit and also the credits are of very long standing in the insurance scheme. They are in the regulations made under the main National Insurance Acts. I cannot remember the precise Section, but I will give the precise chapter and verse to the hon. Gentleman afterwards, if I may, as soon as I have had the opportunity to look it up. I assure him that there is a long-standing legal basis for these arrangements in the Acts and in the regulations made under them. Further, there is no power to waive these regulations in any particular case, but what I think I can say is that there is a flexibility within the arrangements to try to deal with the two types of case which have been raised tonight.
  Let me deal first with the crediting of contributions for unemployment. There are three main conditions for getting a credit. For a week of unemployment a person has to justify one of the following conditions. The first is that he had at least 26 employed person's contributions paid or credited in the last contribution year before the benefit year in which the week falls. Secondly, that he has at least 10 employed person's contributions paid or credited in the last 13 weeks. Thirdly, that he became unemployed following employment by an employer, as distinct from being self-employed, and that he will normally rely on such employment for his livelihood. I shall say more about those three conditions in a moment because some of them are relevant to the condition of the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
  Those are the main conditions. There are other conditions, namely, that the person concerned has to sign on at the employment exchange and be available for employment. He must not be disqualified because of leaving his employment voluntarily without just cause or losing it through misconduct.
  That is the position with regard to credits.
  Perhaps I may now say something about the principle which underlies these regulations before coming to some of the flexible features which I mentioned. The principle underlying the arrangement here is that contributions are credited to persons who are experiencing a contingency against which they are insured. Employed

  673
  persons are insured against unemployment, and if they satisfy the contribution conditions they can get unemployment benefit. I mentioned the conditions under which they are entitled to credits.
  It has not been found practicable to cover people, other than those employed, against unemployment. Self-employed people are their own masters and therefore they have greater freedom and control over their own activities than is the case with people employed by somebody else. They are usually able to decide when not to work. In other words, they have a measure of control over their unemployment.
  It is well recognised that there are some difficult cases, but it has not been found possible up to now to find a way which would not be open to abuse to cover the self-employed man against the contingency of unemployment, for the reasons which I have mentioned. None the less, there are various ways in which people who have come out of self-employment can be helped and in which they are not left without cover. There are special arrangements and special rules which can assist people in this kind of situation.
  First, they can, as the hon. Gentleman said, pay contributions at the non-employed rate, assuming that they can afford them, and by doing that they preserve their entitlement to the long-term benefits—the retirement pension, and the widow's benefits in particular. That is the first thing they can do.
  The second thing they can do, if their income is small, is to ask for what is called a small income exception. A person whose income is calculated as not being more than £468 a year can claim exception from liability to pay contributions as a self-employed or non-employed person. It is open to people whose circumstances have changed and have resulted in their income being cut off, or reduced to £9 week or less, for an indefinite period to apply for such exception. In determining income for this purpose the amount of the contribution which would otherwise be payable—£1·50 for a self-employed man, £1·20 for a non-employed man—is deducted from the person's declared income. Exception does not give credits, but non-employed person's contributions can be paid voluntarily over a period of exception of up
  674
  to at least six years after they become payable and still count for pension.
  In other words, if someone has a gap in his self-employment and then gets back into self-employment he has this fairly long period in which he can make up the loss in his contribution record. In addition to that, if exception is obtained and contributions are not paid, the rate of retirement pension may not be reduced, largely depending on the contribution record as a whole. The reason for this is that a yearly average of 50 contributions paid or credited is required for a full contribution record. The fact is that most years have either 52 or 53 contribution weeks, so anyone who has been given exception for, say, between two and three years during his working life can still have a full record of contributions when he retires and, therefore, his right to pension and his widow's right to pension can be preserved. That is one way in which people in this position can be helped.
  A third—and this is a special rule to assist them—is that if a person coming out of self-employment and going into employment pays 26 contributions as an employed person following a previous full record of contributions either as self-employed or non-employed, he then gets full cover for unemployment benefit. In other words, what happens is that he can count his previous contributions paid as self-employed or non-employed as employee's contributions and so value upwards his previous contribution record and therefore get himself in full benefit earlier than would otherwise be the case. One of the reasons this was introduced was to assist the transitional period from self-employment to employment in the event of someone having to move to employment and then becoming unemployed.
  The fourth method, which will assist some people, is that if they have paid 10 contributions as employed persons, or either paid them or had them credited in the last 13 weeks, they then become entitled to credits. This was one of the points which I mentioned earlier.
  The fifth provision, which, again, can help in some cases, is, if they have a short period in employment—and it can be as little as one week—they can then be entitled to credits as long as they

  675
  can show they are seeking in future employment and not self-employment.
  I mention these five methods by which people moving from self-employment or going out of self-employment and having a period of no employment can be assisted. I recognise that they might not help the hon. Gentleman's constituent, but some of them would, or might in certain circumstances, help others.
  For those reasons, the various methods of assisting people have been drawn up. It is intensely difficult, in a vast scheme like the National Insurance Scheme, to have regulations which fit all the wide variety of types of employment and needs. One cannot have, unfortunately, a scheme which will be absolutely tailor-made to meet the varying circumstances of over 20 million people who are in the working population. But I hope that the methods which I have outlined show that considerable efforts have been made over the years to make the arrangements as flexible as possible.
  I come to the position of Members of of Parliament who lose their seats following a General Election. We in the Department are considering the position of Members of Parliament and of all office holders in the light of the Boyle Report. There is reference to the position of office holders in our White Paper
  676
  "Strategy for Pensions", published last September. We are considering this aspect. We have not yet reached a conclusion but we hope that we shall be able, following the suggestions in the Boyle Report, if the House finds it acceptable, to give a wider range of cover than is now available to office holders.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Take a person like the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) who has been self-employed, becomes unemployed, has no income and therefore presumably goes on supplementary benefit. Is it possible for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to pay, in addition to the normal scale rate, the equivalent of the non-employed stamp?
  Mr. Dean: Unless there are very unusual circumstances, broadly speaking, the answer is "No". If his resources were such that he required supplementary benefit, he would usually be entitled to small income exception, and it is possible to obtain that for a period of perhaps two or three years without undermining the insurance position of the person concerned provided he has had a full record and is likely to have a full record afterwards.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Three o'clock a.m

CIVIL SERVICE
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Civil Service, State Boards and Judiciary (Pay)
  Civil Service, State Boards and Judiciary (Pay)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Broadcasting (Beveridge Report)
  Broadcasting (Beveridge Report)
  Government Units (Dispersal to Wales)
  Government Units (Dispersal to Wales)
ENVIRONMENT
  Wath-upon-Dearne (Bypass)
  Wath-upon-Dearne (Bypass)
  Rivers (Pollution)
  Rivers (Pollution)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Entertainment (Children)
  Entertainment (Children)
  Houses for Sale (Register of Survey)
  Houses for Sale (Register of Survey)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  House Purchase
  House Purchase
  New Houses (Deposits)
  New Houses (Deposits)
  Lorries (City Centre Exclusion)
  Lorries (City Centre Exclusion)
  Accommodation Standards (Civil Servants)
  Accommodation Standards (Civil Servants)
  Trunk Roads (Study)
  Trunk Roads (Study)
  Rents (Birmingham)
  Rents (Birmingham)
  House Improvement Grants
  House Improvement Grants
  Railways (Pay)
  Railways (Pay)
  A45, Thurlaston-Birmingham (Fatalities)
  A45, Thurlaston-Birmingham (Fatalities)
  Railways (Public Subsidy)
  Railways (Public Subsidy)
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Rates (Manufacturing Industries)
  Rates (Manufacturing Industries)
  Motor Cars (Exhaust Emissions)
  Motor Cars (Exhaust Emissions)
  Motor Cars (Safety Projects)
  Motor Cars (Safety Projects)
  A2 (Boughton and Dunkirk Bypass)
  A2 (Boughton and Dunkirk Bypass)
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  European Economic Community (Transport Policy)
  European Economic Community (Transport Policy)
  Lorries (Axle Loads)
  Lorries (Axle Loads)
  Transport Undertakings (Regulations)
  Transport Undertakings (Regulations)
  Bricks
  Bricks
  Road Haulage (Agency Drivers)
  Road Haulage (Agency Drivers)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Space Shuttle
  Space Shuttle
  Houses (Advertisements)
  Houses (Advertisements)
  Exhaust Emission (Research)
  Exhaust Emission (Research)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Skyjacking
  Skyjacking
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Leonard Crickmar
  Leonard Crickmar
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  AEROSPACE AND AVIATION POLICY
  AEROSPACE AND AVIATION POLICY
  GOVERNMENT POSTS (DISPERSAL)
  GOVERNMENT POSTS (DISPERSAL)
  ACCUSED PERSONS (AGE)
  ACCUSED PERSONS (AGE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Lairage Conditions (Dover)
  Lairage Conditions (Dover)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Milk, Sugar and Potatoes (Price Control)
  Milk, Sugar and Potatoes (Price Control)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
DEFENCE
  Phenyl Chloride (Transportation)
  Phenyl Chloride (Transportation)
  Royal Navy (Vessels)
  Royal Navy (Vessels)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Proportional Representation
  Proportional Representation
  "The Terror and the Tears"
  "The Terror and the Tears"
  Rates Relief (Belfast)
  Rates Relief (Belfast)
  Tourism
  Tourism
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
EMPLOYMENT
  National Coal Board (Staff Redundancies)
  National Coal Board (Staff Redundancies)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Building Industry (Dispute)
  Building Industry (Dispute)
  Dock Workers (Severance Payments)
  Dock Workers (Severance Payments)
  Fairgrounds (Safety)
  Fairgrounds (Safety)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fairgrounds (Safety)
  Fairgrounds (Safety)
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Vivisection (Inspections)
  Vivisection (Inspections)
  M1 (Speed Convictions)
  M1 (Speed Convictions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Outside Broadcasting (Advertising)
  Outside Broadcasting (Advertising)
SCOTLAND
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Residential Child Care
  Residential Child Care
  Vibration Syndrome
  Vibration Syndrome
WALES
  Tourism
  Tourism

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.

LORD SEEBOHM
Sir Frederic Seebohm, Knight, having been created Baron Seebohm, of Hertford in the County of Hertford, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Sherfield and the Baroness Serota.
LORD WATKINS
Tudor Elwyn Watkins, Esquire, having been created Baron Watkins, of Glyntawe in the County of Brecknock, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Champion and the Lord Maelor.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.57 p.m.
LORD MACLEAN: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address of sympathy on the occasion of the death of His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor.
"I am glad to think that my Uncle's service to his country and to the British Empire is remembered with gratitude at this time.
"I am conveying the House's expression of sympathy to the Duchess of Windsor."

LONDON/PENZANCE ROAD AND HEAVY LORRY TRAFFIC
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
304
when the designated main route from London to the South-West (A.303, etc.) will have its proposed dual-carriageway system completed.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to complete the comprehensive improvement of the strategic route between London and Penzance by the early 1980s.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that East and West of Stourton the congestion is absolutely impossible at this time of year, and that with the proliferation of large vehicles it is practically impossible to move, and very dangerous because people become impatient and try to overtake? Would there be any opportunity or chance of the Government's making a rule whereby on non-dual carriageways these large vehicles are forced to keep at least 100 yards apart so as to avoid accidents?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point about my knowing the route in that part of the world. As I have said before in this House, my right honourable friend does not intend to bring in legislation about the spacing of heavy lorries. He thinks that this is a matter best left to the discretion and common sense of the drivers concerned. However, as he has indicated, in the case of larger lorries, with which we may or may not be involved in the future, he is considering designating special roads for these vehicles.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord or the Government take one further step towards easing the situation? Would they ask the county councils concerned, of Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon, when they are carrying out small road improvements to make dual carriageways, instead of just one lane each way, so saving the extra time and expense of chopping up the road again to make a dual carriageway in a couple of years' time?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend has in this very month made announcements that

305
over £350 million worth of improvements are in preparation or construction for Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, and where the traffic flow warrants it the noble Lord's suggestion is likely to be met.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord's answer mean that, so far as this highway is concerned, there will be no improvement for a period of ten years?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not call £350 million worth of improvements in the counties of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, nothing.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, was one to understand the noble Lord to say that the Government are considering designating special roads for large lorries? Can the noble Lord tell me why the Government do not make some attempt to encourage the goods carried by them to go on the railways which are already designated for them?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that question is going rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, did the noble Lord really mean in his earlier reply "designating special roads"; or did he intend to use the words "designating special lanes"?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I was answering a question of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, about whether lorries which caused congestion should be spaced apart. I said that where large lorries are concerned—and with the possibility of their becoming larger—my right honourable friend has announced that he is considering allowing them to go only on special roads which would be designated for that purpose.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of a supplementary question and of what the noble Lord has just said, may I ask whether we are to take it that his right honourable friend is contemplating a further increase in the permitted size of loads of vehicles?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is trying to twist my tail a little. He knows
306
that my right honourable friend has under consideration the possibility that we may have to increase the size of lorries if our European partners in the future wish us to. He is only planning for the future.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does this mean that if we go into the Common Market we shall have to indulge in this additional expenditure of building special highways for Common Market lorries?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords; we are building roads for our own flow of traffic, and if these lorries happen to come to our country they will be kept to roads which can cope with them.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, does that answer mean that we are building these roads for our own traffic and that they will not be used by the Common Market traffic?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Common Market traffic will use our roads just as our traffic will use the Common Market roads.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, is not the idea that it is best to leave these regulations to the good sense of the drivers rather foolish when they have no good sense: and is this not rather an excuse for just doing nothing?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not accept the fact that heavy lorry drivers have no common sense. By and large I find them very good, and in any case education and example are what is needed.

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION
3.4 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 is the nature of their consultations taking place with the Government of Finland regarding the projected European Conference on Security and Co-operation.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, at their meeting in Bonn on May 30 and 31, Foreign Ministers of North Atlantic Treaty countries accepted the offer of the Finnish Government to provide facilities in Helsinki to prepare the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. These and other decisions are recorded in the Final Communiqué which, with your Lordships' permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the Final Communiqué referred to:

FINAL COMMUNIQUE
The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Bonn on 30th and 31st May, 1972.
2. Ministers reaffirmed that the purpose of the Alliance is to preserve the freedom and security of all its members. Defence and the relaxation of tension are inseparably linked. The solidarity of the Alliance is indispensable in this respect. Allied governments seek an improvement in their relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and aim at a just and durable peace which would overcome the division of Germany and foster security in Europe.
3. Ministers noted progress in relations between Western and Eastern countries, increasing contacts between the leaders of these countries, and the conclusion of important agreements and arrangements. They welcomed these developments flowing from major initiatives undertaken by their governments, which had full and timely consultations on these subjects. Such consultations will continue.
4. Ministers welcomed the signing by the United States and the U.S.S.R. of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the interim agreement on Certain Measures with respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. They believe these two agreements limiting the strategic arms of the United States and the U.S.S.R. will contribute to strategic stability, significantly strengthen international confidence, and reduce the danger of nuclear war. Ministers also welcomed the commitment by the United States and the U.S.S.R. actively to continue negotiations on limiting strategic arms. They expressed the hope that these two agreements will be the beginning of a new and promising era of negotiations in the arms control field.
5. Ministers noted with satisfaction that the treaty of 12th August, 1970, between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union and the treaty of 7th December, 1970, between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Polish People's Republic are to enter into force in the near future. They reaffirmed their opinion that these treaties are important,
308
both as. contributions towards the relaxation of tension in Europe and as elements of the modus vivendi which the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to establish with its Eastern neighbours. Ministers welcomed the declaration of 17th May, 1972, in which the Federal Republic of Germany confirmed its policy to this end and reaffirmed its loyalty to the Atlantic Alliance as the basis of its security and freedom. They noted that it remains the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany to work for circumstances of peace in Europe in which the German people, in free self-determination, can recover their unity; and that the existing treaties and agreements to which the Federal Republic of Germany is a party and the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and Germany as a whole remain unaffected.
6. Ministers also welcomed the progress made since their last meeting in the talks between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR. They regard the conclusion of the agreements and arrangements between the competent German authorities, which supplement the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin of 3rd September, 1971, as well as the signature of a Treaty on Questions of Traffic between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR, as important steps in the effort to improve the situation in Germany. They thus feel encouraged in the hope that, in further negotiations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR, agreement might be reached on more comprehensive arrangements which would take into account the special situation in Germany.
7. Ministers noted with satisfaction that the governments of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union have arranged to sign the Final Protocol to the Quadripartite Agreement. The entry into force of the entire Berlin Agreement being thus assured, the Ministers hope that a new era can begin for Berlin, free of the tension that has marked its history for the past quarter century.
8. In the light of these favourable developments, Ministers agreed to enter into multilateral conversations concerned with preparations for a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. They accepted with gratitude the proposal of the Finnish Government to act as host for such talks in Helsinkiat the level of Heads of Mission under the conditions set out in its aide-memoire of 24th November, 1970. Accordingly, they decided to work out with other interested governments the necessary arrangements for beginning the multilateral preparatory talks.
9. Ministers stated that the aim of Allied Governments at the multilateral preparatory talks would be to ensure that their proposals were full considered at a Conference and to establish that enough common ground existed among the participants to warrant reasonable expectations that a Conference would produce satisfactory results.
10. Prepared in this way, a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should constitute an important factor in the process

309
of reducing tension. It should help to eliminate obstacles to closer relations and co-operation among the participants while maintaining the security of all. Allied governments look forward to a serious examination of the real problems at issue and to a Conference which would yield practical results.
11. Ministers considered that, in the interest of security, the examination at a CSCE of appropriate measures, including certain military measures, aimed at strengthening confidence and increasing stability would contribute to the process of reducing the dangers of military confrontation.
12. Ministers noted the Report of the Council in Permanent Session concerning a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Report examined the issues which might be included on the Agenda of a Conference as set forth in paragraph 13 of the Brussels Communique of 10th December, 1971, as well as the procedural questions relating to the convening of a Conference. Ministers directed the Council in Permanent Session to develop further its substantive and procedural studies in preparation for a Conference.
13. Ministers representing countries which participate in NATO's Integrated Defence Programme recalled the offers to discuss mutual and balanced force reductions which they had made at Reykjavik in 1968, at Rome in 1970, and subsequently reaffirmed.
14. These Ministers continue to aim at negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions and related measures. They believe that these negotiations should be conducted on a multilateral basis and be preceded by suitable explorations. They regretted that the Soviet Government has failed to respond to the Allied offer of October 1971 to enter into exploratory talks. They therefore now propose that multilateral explorations on mutual and balanced force reductions be undertaken as soon as practicable, either before or in parallel with multilateral preparatory talks on a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
15. These Ministers noted the studies conducted since their last meeting on political, military and technical aspects of mutual and balanced force reductions. They instructed the Permanent Representatives to continue this work in preparation for eventual negotiations.
16. These Ministers stated that the present military balance of forces in Europe does not allow a unilateral relaxation of the defence efforts of the Allies. Unilateral force reductions would detract from the Alliance's efforts to achieve greater stability and detente and would jeopardise the prospects for mutual and balanced force reductions.
17. Ministers took note of a Report by the Council in Permanent Session on the situation in the Mediterranean. They expressed their concern regarding the factors of instability in the area which could endanger the security of the members of the Alliance. They in structed the Council in Permanent Session to
310
follow closely the evolution of the situation and to report to them at their next meeting.
18. The next Ministerial Session of the North Atlantic Council will be held in Brussels in December 1972.
19. Ministers requested the Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to transmit this Communique on their behalf through diplomatic channels to all other interested parties, including neutral and non-aligned governments.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether she remembers that in a reply on a former occasion she indicated that Her Majesty's Government were making contact with Helsinki? It was in that connection that I was asking this particular Question.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have of course to work together with our Allies on his matter, which is what I hoped I implied.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that further reply may I ask her whether, in view of the agreement about Berlin and the Treaties between Western Germany, Moscow and Warsaw, it is not desirable that we should now put aside the rather lukewarm and cynical attitude that we have had towards the European Conference and give it constructive activisation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not think it is the Allies who have been lukewarm towards the suggestion. Unfortunately the Warsaw Pact countries did not respond to the exploratory talks on this matter, which we hope to continue.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness state whether this proposed preliminary conference in Helsinki is to be one of officials preparing the agenda for a Ministerial meeting in the autumn which would consider all the details of the proposed Conference?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, this is a preparatory talk to see whether there is in fact enough common ground to have a Conference, not necessarily in Helsinki itself.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS IN EAST AFRICA
LORD AVEBURY: 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 action they have taken following the recommendation of the European Human Rights Commission that a friendly settlement be reached in the case of the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the Commission is in the process of seeking a friendly settlement with the parties to the applications, and there has been no recommendation as such. I cannot say more since dealings between the Commission and the parties are confidential.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would like to remind the House how long it is since the Commission asked the British Government and the litigants to reach a friendly settlement. Does she recall that the hearing was on September 30? Does she further recall that in answer to an Unstarred Question on December 14, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that there was a carefully laid down procedure for these matters and that some progress had been made in passing through the various stages? Can the noble Baroness now say why there has been this disgraceful prevarication on the part of the British Government; whether they intend to make any offer whatsoever and, if not, why they do not tell the European Commission that they are not prepared to effect a settlement? Can she further say how many meetings have taken place with the European Commission since the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, replied to me on December 14?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I feel that I cannot go into all the details. I can only add that the matter is currently with the Commission and it is for the Commission to decide upon the next step. As I have already said, the dealings between the Commission and the parties are confidential.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is not prepared to say anything about dealings with the Commission could she at least say how many meetings have taken place with the officials since the debate on December 14?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am afraid that that information is not available but I will ask my noble friend to write to the noble Lord on that matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there is likely to be an appeal from the Commission to the Vienna Court? Can she also say whether any agreement has now been reached with the Government of India by which a proportion of British Asians from Eastern Africa passing through India shall be allowed to come to this country?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that this is a matter that would be considered after the present discussions have been concluded. In answer to his second point, I really think it is rather wide of the Question.

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
Read 3a, with an Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS
3.11 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT LORD CHALFONT rose to call attention to the urgent need for an international convention prohibiting the possession, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a relatively large number of speakers for a two-and-a-half hour debate. I notice also that there is one maiden speech scheduled. May I, in advance, wish the maiden speaker good fortune and good luck with his speech? I am sure that we shall listen to it with very great attention.
My Lords, it was a basic principle of Roman law that "Armis bella non venenis geri", which, being translated, means "War is waged with weapons not with poison". There may be many of my noble friends who believe that we should not wage war at all; but if it is unavoidable, as it has been over the centuries, certain weapons have always been looked upon with special repugnance. Even in the days of primitive warring between tribes the poisoning of wells was one of the few things that was not permitted in tribal warfare.
I do not want to go into the history of chemical warfare to-day but simply to point out that there is now I believe a need more urgent than there has ever been for us to come to some international agreement about this particular weapon of war. I am especially pleased that I have been fortunate enough to be able to introduce this debate before your Lordships' House to-day because we are presently seeing the beginnings of the great Conference in Stockholm on the Human Environment. And yet, while that Conference is going on, we are still stockpiling every day masses of these terrible weapons, not only weapons that can at a stroke annihilate hundreds of thousands of people but weapons that even now, to-day, are poisoning the environment in certain parts of the globe.
I am not going to discuss this afternoon some very obvious candidates for discussion, such as, for example, napalm, because that is not strictly speaking a chemical weapon; nor toxins. They are chemical weapons but they have been dealt with in the Biological Weapons Convention. Nor shall I deal with defoliants and herbicides which have their effect on vegetation and on the environment but not directly on human beings. Others may feel very strongly about those particular agents, and if they do I hope very much that we shall hear some views on them. I propose, however, to concentrate on the chemical weapons in their narrowest sense; that is to say, chemical weapons which are designed directly or indirectly to kill human beings. I want to be as constructive as possible and I propose to give a very brief outline of the kind of draft treaty which I think might meet with international approval.
But first I should like to examine for a very few moments why I
314
believe this matter is of such very great urgency. The first reason is that I believe it is now time, in the whole context of international agreements and international negotiations, that we had some real disarmament. We have not yet had any real disarmament. We have had arms control and it is my view that this stricture applies even to the very important Convention on biological weapons. It has been said that it involves real measures of disarmament because it calls upon the signatories to destroy their existing stockpiles of biological weapons; but so far as we know only one nation had a stockpile of weapons: that was the United States of America, and they had unilaterally undertaken to destroy their stockpiles before the biological warfare Convention was signed.
Secondly, I believe that there is now a great drive and thrust of world opinion towards an agreement of this sort. There was the United Nations Resolution of January, 1972, which called upon all States to engage in urgent negotiations on the banning of chemical weapons. The Secretary-General in his message to the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva in February of this year made the same appeal, and he made it again in even stronger terms when he was welcoming the opening for signature of the biological warfare Convention, as recently as April of this year.
I mentioned the biological warfare Convention. That is another reason why I believe that this matter of chemical weapons has now become one of urgency, because Article IX of the biological warfare Convention states quite specifically that all its signatories undertake to continue negotiations in good faith with a view to reaching an early agreement on chemical weapons; and that solemn undertaking we, the Government of this country, have signed.
I come now to the dangers of the spread of these weapons, and not only their spread possibly to small nations which cannot afford to make nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons have been called the poor man's weapon of mass destruction, and there is no reason that I can see why small countries wishing to achieve a kind of international power to blackmail that is at present in the possession of the Great Powers, should not

315
do it if they wish through the possession of chemical weapons. But there are other, and I think somewhat more sinister, implications here. It is the possibility that these weapons might even spread out of the hands of Governments and into the hands of private people. One has only to think of the appalling incident that recently took place at Lydda airport to realise that nowadays international terrorists will stop virtually at nothing. The chemical weapon is easily portable, cheaply made and easily used by people who are prepared first of all to protect themselves against its effects. I ask noble Lords to think seriously about the appalling danger that would be presented to international order and stability if international terrorists of the kind who carried out the shocking raid at Lydda airport were to decide to use, instead of the weapons that they used there, this kind of weapon of indiscriminate destruction. Stockpiles of these weapons exist all over the world, and we have only to look at terrorists in action at the moment anywhere in the world to realise that many of the weapons they use are stolen or otherwise acquired from existing military stockpiles. There is no reason that I can see why, if they wished, these people should not get their hands on the weapons of mass destruction.
If we look at what comprises these stockpiles, the picture is an appalling one. Let us look by way of example at the United States of America. This is only because we happen to know about the United States of America, for it is an open society and makes these things public. The United States of America has seven standard chemical agents, seven standard war gases. Two of them, called VX and GB are highly lethal gases of a kind that have not been seen before in the history of military engineering. I will mention some of their effects in a moment, but if we just take one small point about this agent VX. In a recent test of aircraft spraying over the Dugway proving ground in the United States of America a little of this VX agent escaped. It is fortunate that this area was occupied only by sheep because this small amount of VX gas spread immediately over an area of 200 square miles and killed instantly 7,000 sheep that occupied the
316
area. As I say, we are only too grateful and thankful that they were sheep.
These agents are hundreds of times more powerful than even the deadly gases that were actually used in World War I, and they are only two that the United States possess. They possess HD, which is the old mustard gas and which now seems a rather cosy little weapon by comparison; BZ, an incapacitating gas not designed to kill but to put people out of action; DM, which used to be called—soldiers will recognise the term—Adamsite; CN, and finally the now well-known CS gas, which is a powerful tear gas, not lethal if used in open spaces, but of course nobody is quite sure what its effects would be if used in enclosed spaces. On this question of CS gas, I think it worth mentioning that in one year in Vietnam six million pounds of CS gas, in weight, were used, and much of this is what is called the improved CS gas, CS2. This is treated with a silicone compound so that having been used it remains dormant on the ground, either until a wind springs up, or there is a rainstorm, or until people walk through it; and it is then reactivated and begins to have its effect.
Although I said that this gas was not lethal, I think it is relevant and not unfair to quote to your Lordships a few words from the testimony of a man called Han Swyter, a United States military expert, at a conference on chemical and geological weapons held in the United States in the summer of 1969. He said:
"May I add that last year about three-quarters of the six million pounds of CS gas was used to kill people. It was used to make ordinary conventional bombs and artillery more effective."
I mention this simply to point out to your Lordships the danger and, to my mind, the unwisdom of trying to distinguish between chemical agents which are lethal and chemical agents which are not. It is not the agent which kills; it is the way in which it is used. With all these things go a whole range, a whole panoply, of weapons with which to deliver them—rockets, mortar bombs, mortar cartridges, aircraft bombs, bulk disseminators, artillery shells. Any of these can be used, are used and are stockpiled for delivering chemical lethal gas weapons if they should ever be used in war.
That is just the picture of the United States of America, used, as I say, not to point any finger at the United States but rather the contrary, to show that in an open society at least we know about these things. We can only guess what the stockpiles are likely to be in the Soviet Union. We know that in the 1940s and the 1950s they built up large stocks of these chemical weapons because they were afraid of the strength of the Allies in tactical nuclear weapons. The one thing about chemical weapons is that they last for ever. So we can be fairly certain that those large stockpiles built up by the Soviet Union are there to-day. Indeed, I suppose that one is safe in surmising that there are few armies in the world of any country of any importance that do not possess a large stockpile of lethal gases, lethal chemical weapons.
I said that I would mention briefly (although I am sure that these facts will be familiar to most of your Lordships) some of the effects of these gases. I mentioned VX, the most powerful V agent now in existence, so far as we know. To give you an idea of what its power is, I may say that the old mustard gas of World War I, which caused so many terrible casualties, was powerful enough—one whiff of it was enough to tear a man's lungs to pieces—but to kill a man through the skin 5,000 mgs. of it were needed. In World War II a nerve gas called Sarin was invented, although, thank God!, never used. It was able to kill a man through the skin by the application of 2,000 mgs., so things were getting more and more powerful, VX gas, the latest V agent, can kill a man with a drop on the skin of 5 mgs. So we are now in the situation in which a man's skin, in chemical warfare, is as vulnerable as his lungs used to be in the days of World War I. And any of your Lordships who served in that war—and I know there are some here—will recall what an appalling picture that was.
There are medical details of what this gas does to people, what any nerve gas does to people, when it is used in war. There have been clinical tests, there have been controlled tests and laboratory tests. In the report of the World Health Organisation, issued just over a year ago and called Health Aspects of Chemical and Biological Weapons, there was,
318
although in very cold and controlled medical language, a clear indication that these weapons do not just kill; they kill horribly. There is a piece of prose in one of those reports which describes the progression of the suffering of a man attacked by a nerve gas. It starts quite harmlessly with giddiness, tension, anxiety, withdrawal, depression, nightmares, and then it progresses to what is called fasciculation. My noble friend on my left, I am sure, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that to mean a twitching of the nerves and muscles of the body wherever the gas has touched the skin. This is followed by coma, convulsions, dyspnoea, which is difficulty in breathing, involuntary activation of the bladder and bowels and eventual death. But we can do even better than that. There are new technological advances, I am sure you will be delighted to hear. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, who has made a study of these matters, will, I am sure, be able to tell us a little more about them when he speaks.
But if anybody is still in any doubt about the nature of these weapons, I hope we can finally destroy the canard, the fallacy, that has been put about that these are in some way humane weapons of war. It has been suggested that some of these weapons, especially the incapacitating gases, are used because if they were not used it would be necessary to use worse weapons. But, my Lords, they might also be used instead of using no weapons at all, or instead of using better weapons. The object, after all, of a nation at war is to kill its enemies, and if it is given a weapon that will kill them it will do so. I beg of any noble Lord who has not before done so to recognise that this plea that gas is a humane weapon is a piece of special pleading and should be regarded with the gravest suspicion.
My conclusion from this is that there is an urgent need to get rid of this dreadful weapon. Its appalling effects on the human body, its capacity for mass annihilation, the dangers of its spreading to criminals and terrorists, its awful not only physical but psychosocial effects, seem to me to indicate that it is a weapon that we should remove as quickly as we can from the military armour. Not even the soldiers want this weapon. For them

319
it is simply a cumbersome addition to the military armament. If it were ever used it would require soldiers to wear cumbersome protective clothing before they used the gas. And if we have a weapon that is so terrible in its effect, so appalling in its destructive capacity, and not even the soldiers want it, surely it is time that it should go.
I suggest that there is now a clear indication for an initiative by Her Majesty's Government. I know that it is easy always to urge initiatives on Her Majesty's Government. Almost everybody does it at some time or another, but I believe that this is a special area in which we have a tradition of expertise. All the most important arms control agreements of recent years were brought about because initiatives were taken by the British Government. There was first of all the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Moscow Treaty of 1963. The noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office was much involved in these negotiations, and had it not been for British pressure and initiative it is doubtful whether that treaty would ever have been signed. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Biological Warfare Convention came to the table at the conference in Geneva at the instigation of the British Government.
But what is the present position about chemical weapons? I think it is a simple one, and my understanding (the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong) is that as soon as the Biological Weapons Convention had been opened for signature the Soviet Union tabled a draft treaty banning chemicals. It was tabled in April and was very similar, in fact almost identical, to the treaty banning biological weapons. But the West, which generally speaking in disarmament negotiations means the United States and the United Kingdom, were not prepared to accept this draft for very good reasons of their own apparently. The official British representative said on April 18, 1972:
"One must know what substances we are seeking to ban"
and he said that the treaty was not acceptable because it contained no provision for verification. He also said—and he might have left this unsaid:
320
"The British delegation has reached no decision and is putting forward no proposals."
It seems to me, that he should have reached some decision and should have put forward some proposals.
But even when the right honourable gentleman the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office went to Geneva to make his speech he mentioned also the absence of verification and inspection in the draft treaty put forward by the Russians, and spoke of exploring the matter with experts. This seems to me to be a danger signal, and I beg of the Government not to waste any more time with committees of experts. Committees of experts have been at this matter for years. In 1969 the Secretary-General of the United Nations set up a study group. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, then Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, was a member of it. It also had Academician Reutov, of the Soviet Union, a distinguished scientist, and twelve other experts in this field from all over the world. Their report, which is available for all to read, examined the characteristics of chemical weapons the concepts of their use, methods of defence against them, physical effects and ecological effects, and their findings are there for all to read. They concluded, and I quote:
"All weapons of war are destructive of human life, but chemical and biological weapons stand in a class of their own in that they exercise their attack solely on living matter."
They ended their report with these words:
"Were these weapons ever to be used on a large scale no one could predict how enduring the effects might be or how they would affect the structure of society and the environment in which we live."
My Lords that is what the experts said in 1969, and that is what the experts will say if we ask them again.
Even if we are not prepared to accept that, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has produced a study on the prevention of chemical and biological warfare. I have a copy of it here, but that is only one of six volumes. This study goes into all the matters of chemical and biological warfare, and it has 300 pages on the classification of chemical weapons, how they might be verified, the need for verification, tables, charts, percentages, statistics. It is all there. There is no need for any further

321
investigation by experts, and I am convinced that if there is any further investigation by experts they will produce no knowledge that is not already available.
The reaction to the Western attitude in Geneva has been, as one might expect, one of disappointment. Those neutral countries that expect great things from us in disarmament negotiations have expressed disappointment at our negative approach so far to the matter of chemical weapons. The Soviet Union, as one might imagine, seized on this. This is what they hoped would happen when they put forward their Chemical Warfare Convention. It was a tactical move, and it worked; and they are now able to accuse us—and have done so—of obstruction and failing to observe our undertaking under Article 9 of the Biological Warfare Convention. Whether you accept that criticism or not, I can assure your Lordships' House that there are many neutral delegations in Geneva who do accept it and who now believe that it is we, the British and the Americans, who are holding up progress on the Chemical Weapons Treaty.
Various ideas are being put forward to circumvent this situation in Geneva. Some people say that we should start with a partial treaty covering only the lethal nerve gases. I earnestly counsel Her Majesty's Government not to fall for that one. If we do, we shall get into the old argument, "What is a lethal gas and what is a non-lethal gas?" and we shall be accused, rightly or wrongly, of fighting other people's battles for them. That is not what we should be doing in Geneva. So I ask Her Majesty's Government not to fall for this attractive gambit of the treaty that covers only the more lethal gases. Other people talk of a moratorium—that is to say, an undertaking on chemical weapons not amounting to an international agreement. We should be careful about that one, too. Whether we like it or not, the Americans will never look at it. In the United States in arms control agreement the word "moratorium" has been a dirty word ever since the famous test ban moratorium, which they accused the Soviet Union of breaking.
We ought now ourselves to take some action. The Conference reconvenes, unless there have been some changes in
322
the planning, on June 20. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be ready, and I hope that the noble Baroness is going to assure us that Her Majesty's Government are ready, to take some positive action when our delegation goes back for the opening meeting. I suggest that we should not be hypnotised by the question of verification and control. It is true that the joint Soviet-American statement on principles of disarmament calls for verification of measures of disarmament; it is true also that the Soviet Draft Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament includes provisions of verification. But we have had in recent years five perfectly good arms control treaties, in all of which the West started off by asking for some form of control and verification and all of which were eventually agreed to and signed by us without any measures of verification at all.
The Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Treaty on the Stationing of Nuclear Weapons in the Antarctic, the Treaty on the Stationing of Nuclear Weapons in Outer Space, the Biological Warfare Convention which we have just signed, and the famous—and perhaps the most important of them all—Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, although it has a carefully drafted safeguards and verification clause, does not apply these safeguards to the Nuclear Powers and so of course not to the Soviet Union.
Her Majesty's Government know as well as I do, if not better, that the Soviet Union will not sign a treaty which includes international inspection. That is a fact which we must get used to. So we must ask ourselves whether we intend to insist upon formal international verification or whether we will have a treaty without it—because we will not have a treaty with it. There are various suggestions which one can put forward. I do not want to go into the detail of it; I want only to ask Her Majesty's Government not to be hypnotised by this, and not to believe that a verification system must be 100 per cent. effective. All that you need for an arms control or disarmament control agreement is enough of a verification system to make it difficult, distasteful and unwise for anybody to break the treaty for fear of being found out. It does not need to be 100 per cent. water-tight and effective.

323
In conclusion, I should like to put forward very briefly and very simply the kind of treaty which I think Her Majesty's Government could well put forward when the Conference convenes on the 20th of this month, which would gain a good deal of support—not universal support—would at least be a basis for negotiation, and would prevent people from saying that the British Government were dragging their feet over the banning of chemical weapons. It could be a very simple treaty to start with, with not many clauses, although the number of clauses always grows in the course of negotiation. Article I need only prevent the development, production, stockpiling and acquiring of chemical weapons. Article II would be an undertaking to destroy existing stocks, and Article III would forbid the transfer of chemical weapons from one country to another.
Article IV would be a verification article, and here I suggest that Her Majesty's Government examine the possibilities of some kind of verification by challenge, or some system of complaint to the Secretary-General or to the Security-Council of the United Nations—very much the same kind of thing, in fact, as we signed in the case of biological weapons. If we can sign it in the case of biological weapons, why are we not able at least to propose it now as a basis for negotiation? If we had a system of verification of that kind it would, in my view, be very effective. If any country, having signed the treaty, suspected that any other country was in breach of it, they would make a representation to the Security Council or the Secretary-General of the United Nations. If the United Nations found that there was a prima facie case of a breach of the treaty, then the country accused would be under an onus to make its installations available for inspection. It is a classic form of verification and I do not see why it should not be used in this case.
The other clauses of the treaty would of course have to deal with the classification of chemical weapons, with matters like review and withdrawal, and there would be many other consequential clauses as well. But all we need do at the moment is to put down something on the table which would include verification
324
procedures which were satisfactory to us, and then we could at least negotiate instead of standing still. I believe that there is now a great opportunity for this. There is a new international climate brought about by the success of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, by the slight melting of the ice between China and the United States of America, and a measure of real disarmament now might lead to very much greater achievements in this field.
I started by mentioning the Stockholm Conference. I believe that this aspect of international affairs is still at least as important as the cleaning up of the human environment which, in my view, is sometimes very much exaggerated. I think the "Doomwatchers" have gone a little too far. People are beginning to say that there is no point in having disarmament if we will all be killed by pollution and disease. I would suggest that it is equally no good cleaning up the world if we leave in it a danger of mass annihilation by weapons of this terrible kind; and if, after all these great conferences in Stockholm, we allow thousands of acres of the soil and vegetation of the innocent people of developing countries to be polluted and destroyed by herbicides and defoliants.
The right honourable gentleman the Minister for the Environment made a stirring speech in Stockholm, which was reported in one of the papers as "Britain leads fight against pollution". But nowhere in his speech did he mention this particular kind of pollution. It was left to Mr. Olof Palme of Sweden to do that. I urge Her Majesty's Government not, in this new-found glamour of environmental conservation, to forget or to ignore the less exciting but still, in my view, vital and important issues of arms control and disarmament, particularly this, to my mind, extremely important matter of the banning of chemical weapons. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.46 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER:
My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for pressing home this subject upon us from his own very great experience and knowledge. Secondly, I should like to acknowledge the initiatives which this

325
country has already taken in the biological field, and to say that I hope it will respond to the opportunities now opening up in the chemical field. It is of course true that any ban seems to be a purely negative action, but the ban upon chemical and other destructive weapons is borne in upon us by the sheer necessity of bringing home to the Powers, and especially to the super-Powers, their responsiblity for restricting the degree of human evil which they are able to inflict upon one another. In this respect the present is unlike the past, for the past was reasonably static in its conflict between offensive and defensive weapons. In the present, the situation never stands still. Man's increasing powers of destruction are always being extended as his mastery of natural forces is extended. Therefore, unless we take positive action to restrict the power to kill, we shall not only be keeping our contemporary world in a situation of agonising and very costly suspicion, but will be sowing bitter dragon's teeth for the future and will reap a very harsh and grievous harvest from it.
But there is a positive side about any ban such as this. Your Lordships may recall a play by Charles Morgan called The Burning Glass, the theme of which was that a scientist has discovered a devastating secret weapon which the Government of the day were pressing him to reveal to them. At the end of the play he refused to reveal it, whereupon the Prime Minister replied:
"To see an evil power not exercised gives me some hope for the future of the world."
If the nations can demonstrate their power to control themselves and to discipline the resources that are at their disposal by deliberate agreement, that is a positive step forward in the cause of humanity. History might not then have to record, as it might otherwise have to do, that in this strange century of ours, for the furtherance of life and for the development and safety of humanity, we gave with one hand and took away with the other.
I am not competent to discuss most aspects of chemical weapons or the problems they reveal or the kind of arguments which they may provoke, and in view of the many speakers still to come I do not wish to do so. It is quite natural for some of us to say—and I have no
326
doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will remind us of this—that the ultimate ban is the ban on war itself. But there are always others who will say that all weapons are designed to kill, and therefore it is illogical to choose between those which kill more effectively and those which kill less effectively. Your Lordships may recall that far back, at the end of the First War—and it was a very prophetic statement at the time—the International Red Cross warned mankind that wars would soon be all-destroying and without mercy. In that phrase they raised instinctively two forms of weapon which we ought to look at very closely. The first is the "all-destroying" weapon;
that is to say, we now have at our disposal weapons of indiscriminate power of destruction, either directly or, in the event of their being used, in the powers of escalation which they may reveal. This is one factor which nations ought to face in their responsibilities. When you come to try to decide between different degrees of discrimination or the opposite, of course there are bound to be anomalies. High explosives can be indiscriminate, and we hope that in time the public conscience will be more aroused to that fact. But chemical warfare, to some extent at least, like biological warfare, is more likely to be indiscriminate, and equally it is more likely to be capable of definition. Therefore, it presents itself as an area of destructive power to which we ought to address ourselves now along the lines it is suggested that the Government should do so. That is one aspect of weapons.
The other aspect—what the International Red Cross calls "wars without mercy "—clearly refers to the fact that some weapons are more beastly than others, unnecessarily more beastly than others. As far back as 1868 there was a Declaration in St. Petersburg which prohibited the use of weapons which caused unnecessary suffering. I have no doubt that they had not the slightest idea then of the kind of world to which they would be speaking a century later. It might seem strange, in the days of very sophisticated weapons, to think that this covers such things as "dum-dum" bullets, but the principle is clearly the same: is there a distinction to be drawn somewhere between weapons which cause unnecessary destruction and unnecessary suffering as opposed to others?

327
I should like to limit myself very briefly to one small corner of this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned it as one that he was not going to discuss, but I hope he will not mind if I do so. It is simply—for it is a practical one—the use of napalm bombs and kindred weapons. This is a known use; we have seen it happen. It is a chemical use. Such bombs are no doubt very easy to produce and therefore not liable to be stockpiled, but still they are a weapon of chemical warfare, and perhaps it may be for that reason that napalm has been brushed aside. In this respect, I should like to ask, since we know what it can do, why it is not thought to be included in the field of chemical warfare. Why is it not thought to be included, for instance,
in the terms of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which, alongside "asphyxiating and poisonous and other gases", includes "all analogous liquids, materials and devices"? This is clearly something that can be used, and has been used, in a comparatively indiscriminate way. But, what is more, why should not this certainly he looked at along that other line—that is, as a weapon that causes unnecessary suffering?
I looked up the word "napalm" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and to cover my point it describes it as:
"a sticky syrup used in chemical warfare".
It also goes on to say:
"It was used with telling effect in Vietnam."
How telling the effect was might be deduced from a little quotation I should like to make from a certain William Pepper, of the Institute for Advanced Study and Research at, significantly, Mercy College in New York. This is based on his own experiences in Vietnam:
"Napalm and its more horrible companion, white phosphorus, provide for the children of Vietnam fates more horrible to the civilised conscience than stilling of life. Young flesh is seared, liquidised and carved into grotesque forms. The finished products are often scarcely human in appearance, and develop after an experience of unimaginable pain and suffering. One cannot be confronted with the monstrous effects of the burning without being totally shaken."
Does this come within the description of "unnecessary cruelty or suffering"? It is high time that such weapons were included, if they are not going to be included, in any proposed ban on chemical warfare.
328
It is not surprising that a study group has been set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as a result of the Swedish proposal passed in the last United Nation Assembly. I do not know where we as a Government stand in this, but I understand that our own Manual of Military Law states that napalm bombs are lawful only against buildings and non-human targets, and that their use has not been contemplated by this country. Thank goodness for that! That may be one reason why we are not taking them perhaps quite as seriously as I should hope we would. But I think it also puts us in a very strong position for supporting any serious study of this kind of weapon, and the degrees to which it merits some action or prohibition among the nations.
My Lords, in the whole field that deals with the kind of gases which Lord Chalfont has reported, this is only a very small corner, but it is an important one because it is already a known weapon. We are not speaking here of potential weapons, the use of which has not yet been contemplated and therefore the banning of which may not seem quite so difficult to achieve. We are dealing with something which has actually been in use, and therefore something which demands some immediate restriction on our part—a small ban, if you like, within the whole, but a positive step; a little measure of that hope for humanity which any restriction in the destructive powers of man will achieve. Therefore, when we hear from the spokesman for the Government how they react to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I hope we shall hear that they are prepared to take this weapon into consideration.
3.58 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, as I rise to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House I bear in mind that it is customary on such an occasion to be both brief and uncontroversial. Chemical warfare presents, as we have just heard, a really terrifying risk to the world—as great a risk as nuclear or conventional war, to which we have been accustomed so far. It is for this reason that I am glad to add my support to the efforts at present being made in Geneva at the confererence of the Committee on Disarmament. But, indeed, a Protocol was signed in 1925 forbidding the use in war of asphyxiating and poisonous gases which

329
were known at that time. The Protocol covered all choking, blister and nerve gases. But, of course, much progress has been made in the 47 years which have since passed.
Similar progress has been made in researches connected with biological warfare. As recently as May 10 of this year, a Convention was signed simultaneously in London, Washington and Moscow. Among other provisions, the signatory nations undertook to destroy all existing stocks of such weapons, together with their means of delivery, within nine months of the entry into force of the Convention. But it seems that Articles 6 and 9 of the Convention are of crucial importance, and they are most relevant to the problems of chemical weapons. These two Articles are concerned with the problems of inspection, verification and production of such weapons.
Article 6 provides for complaints to the Security Council when a breach of the Convention has been committed by any of the signatories. Then there is the question of evidence; and it is this which causes the greatest obstacle to verification. Signatories have expressed fears that means to carry out such inspection and verification could be used for the purposes of espionage. There will be political differences between signatories and, as we have heard from my noble friend, a more open society exists in some of the signatory countries as opposed to the closed society which is in evidence in others. It is for the reason of evidence that I am pleased to note that Article 9 of the Convention says that signatories should continue to negotiate in good faith for satisfactory methods of banning the production of chemical weapons.
There is still the problem of new weapons being discovered as scientific progress continues, particularly when we see the use of CS and other gases and their derivatives in these countries. My noble friend possibly was not aware of the fact that CS gas has been used in closed, confined spaces. Less than two years ago the Members of another place unwillingly sampled this product. I believe that the problem of chemical warfare can be reduced in scale, given continuing negotiation. The question of verification and inspection is not easily answered. Methods will require more
330
sophistication than those used in the inspection of nuclear and biological warfare. My Lords, in conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity of adding my support for a Convention on chemical warfare, and I am also grateful to your Lordships for your kindness and forbearance.
4.3 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I am able to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. He is the son of one who won great distinction and achieved the highest award for gallantry before he was killed in Italy. We are very proud to have the noble Lord here with us; he has demonstrated to us this afternoon the debt that older Members of this House always owe to the younger Members who come along here and are able to keep us fresh. We hope he will continue to enliven our debates and to keep us up to the standards he will set.
I suppose that this afternoon I should be standing "in the dock" because I am a chemist by training. Chemical warfare would not be possible without chemists, so all chemists have some responsibility in this matter; but I would assure your Lordships that although chemists have played their part in developing weapons they have also shown great conscience in analysing the effects. Indeed, much of the publication which has taken place and much of the information which has been produced about the effects of these weapons has come from publicly-spirited chemists who have wanted the world to know about them. It is impossible for anyone who is concerned as a chemist himself to stop the manufacture of these weapons. It is impossible for us, as individual chemists, to stop their use; but we can at least alert the rest of mankind to the perils, and hope that the rest of mankind may take action.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont, in a very interesting speech, has given us in detail some of the effects of chemicals used in warfare. I must admit that I am not myself immediately terrified by chemical weapons. Perhaps when one has worked in a laboratory one has become somewhat used to the effects of these chemicals long before they were treated as weapons. I remember when I was a boy at school learning chemistry—I still have the mark on my finger to remind me—when some white phosphorus

331
fell on the bench and, not knowing any better at the time, I swept it off with my hand. I had a burn on this finger which lasted for something like two months. The finger became badly swollen. As our medical colleagues know, white phosphorus being soluble in fat can get through and into the bone. There is a considerable risk that it can do irreparable damage to bones. In other words, these chemicals are very dangerous things; they were dangerous long before they were used as weapons. As weapons, most of them—not all—do not kill any more effectively than do high explosives. One must remember that all weapons of war are designed to kill and all weapons of war are designed to act against the individual; and their effects can be very terrible indeed. So my noble friend Lord Chalfont will forgive me if I do not entirely follow him simply in emphasising these appalling effects.
The right reverend Prelate pointed to another reason for banning these weapons—to me the most important reason. It is their indiscriminate nature. Three years ago we had in this House a debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. It was on chemical and biological warfare. A number of speeches were made; and I regret that I myself took part in that debate. At that time I suggested—and I hope your Lordships will forgive my referring to this—that the weapons of war which we ought to ban were the indiscriminate weapons, the nuclear weapons, the biological weapons and the chemical weapons. These are the ones which should be banned long before we try to ban war altogether.
Obviously, we should all like to ban war. We cannot do that by any form of ordinary agreement; but we can at least try to ban those weapons which are indiscriminate in their action and are therefore of deadly peril to the whole human race. This is the crucial matter. It is not so much the weapon that kills the particular individual at which it is aimed; it is not merely those used to annihilate armies—these are terrible things but they are legitimate objectives of war. It is against the weapons whose repercussions are unpredictable, the weapons which spread and whose effects are so wide-ranging that all mankind runs a terrible risk, that we, as responsible
332
people, should take action in order to stop their use.
It will be argued, as it has always been argued, that we cannot get absolute certainty that such weapons will not be used. My noble friend Lord Chalfont pointed out, rightly, that we must do many things without absolute certainty. It is better to take a risk which at least gives us a hope rather than run a risk that we know will lead to destruction. Therefore, my Lords, we must surely ask Her Majesty's Government—who, I am confident, are anxious to do their best in this matter—to take steps now to see that one more weapon of an indiscriminate nature is banned: nuclear first, then biological and now let us move to the chemical one. So it is with very great pleasure that I support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords I should like immediately to add my felicitations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on his maiden speech, alike for its contents and the prospects which he so hopefully envisaged; and, if he will allow me, I would congratulate him most of all on being a young man in a world of such dubious heritage from some of us elders. I hope very much that his ideals will not be diminished as time goes by, and that he will be able even more effectively to express them in your Lordships' House.
I should have thought, my Lords, that from what ever standpoint this Motion is conceived—and I look at it from the standpoint of a pacifist—it must attract the enthusiastic support in principle of all right-minded people. I hold the conviction that ultimately we have to outlaw war itself, but I am not churlish enough to believe that in a "holier than thou" attitude, we must hold to that general proposition and ignore the various stages by which it may be more effectively attained. Therefore I welcome any move in the general direction of disarmament, and not least in this particular field.
I approach this problem with a curious reflection on the way in which the whole concept of Apocalypse has been transferred from the ecclesiastical to the political and social field. There was a time when the only people who professed to know when the end of the world was

333
coming were those who were on a "hot line" to infinity. We were careful enough not precisely to announce the date, but nevertheless we felt that this was a matter in Divine hands. To-day it seems there are not a few who believe that we can do it ourselves without any reference to supernatural aid. Though it is a matter of conjecture, the very fact that this prospect is canvassed is I think of momentous importance, and some of the comforts with which we cosset ourselves seem to me to be singularly free of any substantial merit. It rather reminds me of the octogenarian who, on being asked how he thought he had managed to live so long, said he noticed that if he got through February he always lived to the end of the year. We have got through a number of Februaries, but there is no outworn creed so completely fallacious as the assumption that what has been will necessarily persist. Though I do not regard people like Koestler and Dr. Rotblat as necessarily fifth or sixth writers within the same category as the writers in the New Testament about what is going to happen, I believe there is at least the prospect, the possibility, that we have fast approached a point of no return; and that this is particularly true in the field of chemical warfare.
This particular project also has the advantage of being specifically a project of disarmament in a world where there is still. I think, a fading but still conspicuous belief in the virtues of the balance of power. The present arrangements which have been arrived at in Moscow seem to me to create a balance of power rather than assure any real measure of disarmament. And, historically, balances of power have built into themselves the unfortunate prediction of causing the next general conflagration. For these general reasons, surely it is only right and proper that we should endeavour to diminish the threat which comes to us through these particular weapons, in a world which is altogether too violent anyhow and for that general reason I most heartily support what my noble friend has been saying about chemical warfare.
Yet, my Lords, there seem to me to be two particular areas in which this reference to chemical warfare is suigeneris and not perhaps, if I may break
334
a gentle lance with my ecclesiastical friend, on the question of unnecessary suffering. I find myself unable to make much sense of that, for from the standpoint of pure theology it does not seem to me that one can discriminate between the various degrees of evil in an exercise which is in itself intrinsically evil. I was brought up, until I saw the light, on a document called With the Flag to Pretoria. I remember that in that most curious and entrancing document I was invited to believe that there was nothing so wicked as the use of a dum-dum, soft-nosed bullet which caused unnecessary suffering as compared with the hard-nosed bullet with which 'gentlemen from these shores were acquitting themselves so poorly. I do not find that there is any principle in pure theology that distinguishes between, shall we say, a cannon ball and a shrapnel shell. What I do find is that whereas some of the weapons of yesterday could be circumscribed by time, like the flight of an arrow, many of the weapons of to-day arc not so circumscribed and are more accurately described as conditions. It is this to which reference has already been made so eloquently in the debate hitherto. We are confronted in the world of to-day with the kind of weapon which does not cease when its velocity ends and is not complete when its particular objective is achieved, but produces a condition that may last, as my noble friend has said, in some cases in chemical matters permanently—whatever that may mean. But it is for a very long time, anyway. It is this particular characteristic of the chemical weapon that singles it out, as I see it, for particular treatment, and as immediate treatment as is possible.
Furthermore, may I underline what my noble friend has said about the possibility, in this world of anarchic terrorism, of the use of a weapon which may be secreted in a handbag, made of rubber and used as a squirt, to create conditions of general mayhem even as terrible as what happened—and perhaps more terrible—at Lydda airport only last week. If these weapons are created and produced, it is incontestable that they will leak. They will not he confined to the channels of stockpiling they will leak into other hands less able to use them appropriately—if, indeed, anyone can use such weapons appropriately. And

335
it is this peril which I think is ever increasing.
May I, without impudence, wonder whether you have come into direct contact with some of these dedicated anarchists. I use the word "dedicated" not too pejoratively because they really believe some of the Communist doctrines, specified by Lenin, on the road to insurrection and of the necessity for violent terror as a necessary midwife of the kind of society which will come by no other means. I sometimes wish that our Communist friends were a little more honest in recognising that this is part of their tactic, and it is perfectly true that it is part of their tactic; that is, idealogically. If that is agreed, then we must not, I think, deny to some of these young men, these Japanese for instance, a sense of dedication and commitment in which a total flight from what we would call reason is accompanied by an equally fervent concept of their duty to the society in which they live, or to its reformation; or indeed, its destruction. I believe this is a continuing evil; it is a continuing threat, and nothing, it seems to me, would make it more easy for this threat to be put into terrible use than the proliferation of the kind of chemical which is now not only under construction, but also is stockpiled in so many places on this earth.
One other fact, my Lords. I am immensely impressed by the argument that, if we or Her Majesty's Government make the excuse of saying that the resistance, the recalcitrance—indeed, the obduracy, of the Soviet Union to any principle of inspection should prohibit our initiation of such projects, in the United Nations or elsewhere, it is perfectly true that in so many respects this particular insistence when not made a matter of ultimate principle has not—as my noble friend has said so eloquently—prevented many an agreement being signed; and so far as we know more or less honestly carried out. It is cynical for me to suggest that perhaps the reason for which Her Majesty's Government hitherto may have been unwilling to take the initiative is that our American allies are, or have been, committed to the use of chemical weapons in South Vietnam; and, so far as I know, are still committed to that use—certainly to the use of napalm, to the use of CS gas and defoliation in its various forms. May it not be that, were we not the
336
junior partner in what in this matter is an unholy alliance, we should be freer to make our own contribution to the prospect of general disarmament?
This is a short debate, my Lords, and I do not intend to prolong it by an unduly long speech. I am impressed, as I think your Lordships all are, by the fact that at the moment at which a hostile act has been perpetrated by one of the great super Powers, that same super Power has found it possible, alongside the one against which the act was perpetrated, to enter into consultations and to arrive at agreements. This has lifted a little of the gloom and the cynicism which has rested on so many people's hearts and minds. If we are prepared to embark upon programmes which do not merely recall the past, and deplore it, but take risks in the interests of peace comparable with the risks hitherto taken in the interests of war, then there is a reasonable hope in many hearts and minds to-day, I think, that this is the psychological moment to improve on that and to stimulate and increase that sense of opportunity.
Ultimately what matters is not what happens, but what people think and believe has happened. Ecclesiastically. I believe in salvation by faith as a prelude to salvation by works. That is a good Protestant doctrine, and even Bernard Shaw approved of it. It is a proposition which I think has immense practical value at this moment. I do not believe, with Mr. Nixon, that we have at this moment achieved a breakthrough. But if enough people believe it is a breakthrough, then it will so become. One of the ways in which that belief can be stimulated is by the adventure of Her Majesty's Government in proceeding upon disagreement and turning what at the moment is an acceptance of a balance of power into the prospect of a very real and progressive programme of disarmament. It is for that reason that I most ardently hope that Her Majesty's Government will feel able to sponsor this particular Motion; to make it effective, and to take the risk of saying in the interests of general peace: "We will reject totally and entirely, and invite our friends and our enemies so to do, one of the more ghastly and terrible accompaniments of the programme of violence to which we have been so long committed."
4.23 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord who initiated this debate, and also to the noble Lord who made such a good maiden speech. I feel that it is a very good service that Lord Chalfont has done to this House in initiating a debate at such an appropriate moment on such an important subject. I do not have to repeat, because they were so vividly outlined, the terrible effects of these weapons. I think there would not be one person in your Lordships' House who would not endorse everything that the noble Lord said in opening this debate. I have only one disagreement, and that is on the question of verification. Therefore I should like to pay the greatest attention to that point in the few minutes that I wish to detain the House.
Had I been a member of the Labour Party at the end of the 'fifties I should have been a voracious militant Gaitskellite; and I suspect that the noble Lord would have been, too, if he had not been at that time embracing other professions. I would have "fought, fought and fought again" against Britain taking unilateral action on nuclear disarmament. I have a feeling that if open societies (I like the term the noble Lord used) do not ask for some substantial form of vertification—and I immediately acknowledge that the noble Lord did not take that position; he thought that complete (verification was impossible, but partial verification might be sufficient—then open societies may be unilaterally disarming in an important field of warfare; that is, chemical warfare.
I note that the General Assembly dealt with verification when this matter was discussed. I quote from a Press release dated September 10, 1971, reporting on the General Assembly agenda. It says:
"Verification, which is important, should be based on a combination of national and international measures which would complement and supplement each other and thereby provide an acceptable system that would ensure effective implementation of the prohibition."
That is my view. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, and I think with some substance, that there were five instances or agreements in the field of disarmament where verification had been less than perfect. I think in the cases of the three or
338
four which concern nuclear matters it is true to say that the scientific development of much more sensitive seismic instruments, and to some extent the spies in the sky, have made it easier to verify the maldoers than it was twenty years ago. That is why I supported at that stage this form of disarmament convention in these areas, albeit imperfectly monitored.
The noble Lord said that the U.S.S.R. would never agree. Surely, then, one must be a little suspicious of the motives of the U.S.S.R. if they will never agree to a form of verification against these terrible weapons. After all, they now have a surplus of atomic weapons—there is no question about that—they have a surplus of conventional arms, tanks and other weapons of warfare; they certainly have a substantial surplus even over the United States of America of military trained men and reservists; and in view of the fact that they are undertaking such enormous trouble in training and equipping their troops in Europe against chemical warfare, I suspect that at this moment they have a surplus of chemical weapons as well.
I am sure your Lordships will remember that we suffered grievously, particularly in the naval sphere, from cheating on arms agreements. We had the AngloGerman Naval Agreement in the mid-
'thirties by which Germany agreed that she would never in any circumstances build battleships or capital ships larger than 10,000 tons. It was only discovered at our great cost during the war that the pocket battleships were not of 10,000 tons, but of 26,000 tons. If you can cheat on conventional armaments in a closed society, in a dictatorship, and create great havoc as a result, how much more important that cheating should not be permissible or possible on such vital matters as chemical warfare.
It has been said that in a democracy, with our newspapers and every other means of communication, it is impossible to disobey. I do not raise this with your Lordships in any Party way, but I think one has to remember that 25 years ago Mr. Attlee undertook what I thought was a very courageous and right move in building the first atomic bomb and allotting £100 million of the taxpayers' money to so doing. This was not known to anyone in this country—certainly not

339
to anyone on my side of the House, and I suspect not to many on his own side of the House, because otherwise I feel sure that they would not have been fighting that particular Election on "Whose finger on the trigger?" So even in a democracy it was possible fairly recently to undertake clandestine operations of immense complexity and cost. So I say it is easier in a dictatorship, but it is not impossible in a democracy: and we are ready, as the United States are, to allow people to verify whether we are manufacturing and stockpiling chemical weapons. I think it is only reasonable that the U.S.S.R. should do the same.
I think it is worth quoting in this respect, in case there is any misunderstanding about it, the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to a Question on February 14 in another place, when he said:
"At the same time, it is a fact that this country does not possess, and is not engaged in the production of, these weapons."
The United Kingdom is not—although may be doing some research for defence reasons—manufacturing or stockpiling these weapons. I support the idea that we should have—
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt during such a short debate, but is the noble Lord sure that he is talking about chemical weapons in that answer? I believe that refers to biological weapons, and I can assure him that we are manufacturing and stockpiling chemical weapons.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am sorry. I can read the whole quotation from Hansard Written Answers, 14/2/72, column 10, by Mr. Royle, the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He said:
"…it is our policy to seek an adequately verified prohibition of the possession of chemical weapons."
Then he continued with the piece that I have quoted. If that was inaccurate, I can only say that I have been quoting in good faith.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I simply want to try to put the record straight. There is clearly some misunderstanding. We are not only manufacturing but using CS gas, which is a chemical weapon.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I do not know what the interpretation would be, but, as he rightly acknowledged, there is a spectrum of chemical weapons, and obviously in this context CS gas is not a lethal weapon: he may have been using the term "chemical weapons" in the context of "killing weapons". But in drawing attention to that, which I thought ought to be put on record, I do not wish in any way to dissociate myself from the desire on this side of the House to pursue an initiative and see whether we can obtain a response. I believe absolutely that discussions of this sort in international assemblies which try to achieve an acceptable degree of verification are highly desirable. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue on this tack.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that this debate must conclude in little more than an hour and that we have six speakers still to address us, many of whom we should like to hear, I have "scrubbed" my speech and I propose only to contribute what I hope may be a constructive conclusion to it. We are now in the situation where the Soviet Union has tabled a draft convention for the abolition of chemical weapons. The response of the Government of the United States has been to suggest exploration of the idea. I regret that so far—and I hope it may be remedied this afternoon—Her Majesty's Government has not only done nothing but has said at Geneva that it is doing nothing. The criticism of the convention introduced by the Soviet Union is that it omits any provision for verification. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Convention on Biological Weapons did include the final right of inspection. It said that any nation suspecting violation could complain to the Security Council and the Secretary-General would then institute an investigation on the spot. I should like to support the proposal which has been made by my noble friend, Lord Chalfont, that Her Majesty's Government should take the initiative in drafting and putting before the Disarmament Conference a convention which includes a clause similar to that contained in the Convention on Biological Weapons. The Soviet Union accepted such a clause then, and signed it in April. There would seem to be no doubt that the Soviet Union would also

341
accept this in a convention dealing with chemical weapons.
I had not intended to say it, but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has said, I hope very much that the Minister in her reply will clear up this issue. We have had the ex-Minister of Disarmament, who has knowledge, saying to this House that chemical weapons are still being produced and stockpiled in this country. I put a question—I am not sure whether it was to him or to the Ministry of Defence—it was to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; and his reply was that in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on Biological Weapons we were not making or stockpiling any chemical weapons. I think it quite possible that there may have been a mistake, either of speech or of recording, which applied this to chemical weapons. I ask the Minister in her reply to clear up this point, because I think it is very doubtful indeed that it is not true. We are still continuing to make chemical weapons and are indeed stockpiling them. The great hope of the Biological Convention was that it was a real act of disarmament. America has already destroyed its anti-personnel biological weapons and has undertaken to destroy within six months all its biological weapons of an anti-crop character. Perhaps the Minister could say whether, if we do still retain chemical weapons and a Convention of this character were agreed upon, we would be prepared to go so far. I hope very much that the Minister will consider the constructive proposal that I have tried to put forward, which seems to me to meet the needs of the present situation.
4.37 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I hope to follow the excellent example given by previous speakers and keep my speech very short. As an introduction I should also like to say how much I enjoyed the maiden speech given this afternoon from the Benches opposite, and how delighted I was to find that we can look forward to further speeches from the noble Lord. They will contribute at least, whatever other views he may have, towards a humanitarian point of view, the armamentarium and the chemistry of war.
I am not now going into this in depth but I intended to quote one or two words from this blue book—Sir Harold Ains
342
worth's blue book, which ensued from a request by the late Labour Government to look into the toxicity of CS gas which is now being made and stockpiled. This may be a matter of bandying words and of saying that it is only being used for civil purposes and riots; but this gas and the derivatives from it can be used in wartime. I hope we shall get that matter pompous, but what I am beginning to discover is that here in this House is another Chamber where, without trying to grind our Party axes—we have all ground them so well that there is now no longer any temper in the steel—there is an opportunity to discuss calmly, and I hope without too much bias, these massive problems that are confronting our country, and indeed civilisation itself, at the present moment.
I was delighted to note the philosophic and even metaphysical approach of my noble and dear friend Lord Soper as he compared Bernard Shaw's approach to religion and evolution, and when he said that if we get enough people who believe that President Nixon's visits to the Soviet Union and China have created a breakthrough, then there is no doubt that faith can work wonders. That was the nucleus of Bernard Shaw's phrase "creative evolution". That was the nub. If we can get enough enthusiasm and enough people believing that something is possible then it is possible. if there are scoffers let me say that at one time when this nation was alone, in the days of Dunkirk—and all of us in this House can show the scars and have suffered as a result of the two world wars, either with our families or by ourselves—everything was grey, but we believed in ourselves; we believed that we would win—and at a time when neither America nor the Soviet Union were in the war. We broke through and achieved victory in the end despite the gloom. One may not consider that this is dealing with facts; it is dealing with much more important things: the philosophy of truth and the anatomy of truth. If we believe these things we can break through.
I should like to ask a question which has been so far unanswered. Why is it that in World War II not one person died as a result of chemical warfare? We did not use the impedimenta of chemical warfare in World War II. Why is it that

343
mankind has been driven to use these indiscriminate weapons? A bullet kills cleanly, and when there was hand-to-hand fighting it was man against man. It is a terrible phrase to use, but there was a cleanliness about the fighting. There was not the evil salacity that there is about the nuclear destruction of people. People may have seen those who still suffer from radiation in Japan; or, as has been nobly expressed to-day, people may have seen the results of napalm (and the right reverend Prelate described this) on a child in Vietnam. Unless they are inhuman, people could not help but at least concentrate their efforts in trying to prevent the use of chemical warfare.
I am glad that napalm as such was mentioned. Chemical warfare has brought a new dimension to war. It may be that because it does not destroy property it is looked upon by some with a certain amount of respect. There are some people who may not know it and subconsciously they believe that the destruction of property is a greater sin than the destruction of life. I have no time to go into this matter, but why is there the use of chemical warfare now when, after the 1925 Geneva protocol, we refused to use it? In 1968 the United States of America demanded the retention of herbicides and some chemical warfare usages. They were supported only by Australia and Portugal. Portugal supported them because they are using chemical warfare in Angola. That is one of the silent wars of the world that nobody bothers to write about. We have had many constructive approaches to the limitation of chemical warfare, and I was delighted that my noble friend who initiated this debate quoted the Stockholm research. I am glad that he said, "Do not let us have another group of scientists looking into this." This has been going on for 20 years; we have six volumes—and my noble friend quoted from one of them—which have been produced by the Institute for Peaceful Research in Stockholm. There are many who are qualified in chemistry in this House, and we have had the pleasure of listening to an ex-professor who had a chair in this subject. In the six volumes there are suggestions as to how we may find a method of verifying our approach to the limitation of chemical warfare.
344
I would not like to sit down without mentioning what I consider to be the most evil of all chemical warfare which was developed on the greatest equation in the world: radioactivity. Here we have something—again a new dimension—where the weapon destroys the unborn because of the genetic effect. I remember that the Lancet published a marvellous verse which was rather cyncial and horrible. An expert on the genetic effects of radioactivity wrote a piece of doggerel:
"The nuclear boffins, God bless them all!
Have calculated the fall-out to a decimal,
But my nephew and niece,
Have five legs a-piece,
And their intellect's infinitesimal."
That was rather a gruesome way of describing the genetic effect upon the unborn. When I was in Tonga some two years ago I came across a professor of zoology who had been working on the Japanese research ships that are still studying radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean. Oriental man has nothing to thank the Occident for in using his ocean as an experimental area for exploding bombs. I am glad that this nation, with both Conservative and Labour Governments, has taken some initiatives in a breakthrough in a ban on testing. Irrespective of to whom we give the credit, the British people can claim there a breakthrough.
Filially, I want to say one word about herbicides. I do not think that 99 per cent. of people who talk about herbicides know the territological effects of herbicides: I am referring to the genetic effects. Some 6 million acres of territory in Vietnam have been devastated. It will take generations to grow the forests and the crops. Soil has been eroded; people who drink the water from parts of this area are producing children that show these territological effects upon their births. This is against God himself. Without being too sentimental or emotional about it, although we in Britain as a great Power no longer have the great Empire, there is another greater empire and that is to try to dominate a part of the empire of upright, human and humanitarian thinking. I should like to think that whether we go into the Common Market or not we shall keep the lead in protesting about the use of these indiscriminate weapons in modern war. Consequently, I want to thank my noble friend for having raised this interesting debate to-day. My only

345
wish is that we could have a couple of days to discuss this vital problem.
4.49 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to add to what has already been said in welcoming to the House the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and say how much I appreciated the sentiments that he expressed. In wholeheartedly supporting my noble friend's Motion, I intend to confine myself to discussing the nature of these weapons. It is important that we should say what we mean and mean what we say. It is far too easy to find excuses or make exceptions which in fact would make a nonsense of any convention. I do not want to be recriminatory, and I speak with the greatest of sympathy for my noble friends, Lord Chalfont and Lord Shepherd, when I recall the difficulties that we had in this House over the use of CS gas. The fact that we were trapped by our own predicament at that moment was a dilemma not only stupid but hypocritical.
The fact was that the British refinement of CS was being used as a military weapon in Vietnam for purposes of death-dealing in lethal concentrations in the case of bunkers where people did die of CS gas, or to force people out to be shot down by gunfire. At that time it was quite clear—and I think all of us now admit it—that this was against the Geneva Protocol to which we were signatories, even if the Americans were not. But we could not condemn the military use because we were reserving it, or indeed using it, if you like, in reduced concentrations, as a tear gas in civil disturbances. So we had the not very creditable attempt, if I may say so, to define it as a smoke and not as a gas. What I am really saying is: do not let us get caught with the gobbledygook of this thing, because these things are damnable, and we might as well be quite clear of the categories of what we are talking about, and not find escape hatches or redefinitions and call the thing "smoke" when we know that it is gas, or whatever it is.
While I applauded the initiative of the Labour Government in dealing with biological weapons and getting it discussed at the Disarmament Conference, and indeed ultimately in the area in which we have secured the agreement to renounce
346
these weapons, I regretted the separation of biological and chemical weapons. I think I was possibly wrong. Probably you have to accept the stark politics that if you do separate, as we did, the biological from the chemical then perhaps progressively you can get agreement. But biological in my terminology, and I think also in the terminology of anyone who handles such words, is certainly not confined to bacteriology or the generation of man-made epidemics. It should include the defoliants which act through the biology of the plants and which we know, to our dismay and disgust, as my noble friend has just said, have destroyed forests and food plants in Vietnam over 6 million acres.
Let me just point out what I am trying to emphasise here. Two types of defoliant, 2,4D and 2,45T, accelerate the process of Nature (which is why they are called biological), and indeed produce the equivalent of a plant cancer. It is like the indiscriminate use of the selective hormone weed killers that we use on our lawns, but that are disastrous wholesale. Another of these defoliants is an organic arsenic-containing compound which was used to destroy elephant grass and rice. It is manifestly toxic to humans and to animals because it is consumed in foodstuffs, water and milk. Let me point out what my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek was saying: that the deferred, and indeed transferred, effects of these can be enormously dangerous. It is not just the immediate effects that are relevant. For 2,45T not only persists in the soil, in its existing form, damaging though that is, but is transformed into other compounds which are toxic to plants in subsequent generations. Another herbicide destroys the humus in the soil and reduces it over vast areas to an impervious desert laterite. You have not only destroyed the plants at present, as of now, the things supposed to be hiding the people you are looking for; you in fact turn an area into a deliberately conceived desert, and positively non-regenerative—an irreversible process. Let us ensure that somewhere between biological and chemical we do not overlook this kind of ecological destruction. I would follow the right reverend Prelate in his point about napalm. If we get these things simply reduced or redefined or recategorised, we shall find ourselves with

347
whole areas in which we have overlooked some of the most damnable things we are talking about.
In the vocabulary of chemical warfare we have a wonderful—I repeat, wonderful—classification: G-Agents, blood and nettle gases, vomiting and choking gases, lachrymators, tear gases, and vesicants. The G-Agents, to which my noble friend Lord Chalfont referred (and I will not enlarge on them), are the nerve gases which were stockpiled, but never used, by the Germans. In fact, there were 12,000 tons of one such gas. As has been pointed out, these gases were not used in the war—not even by the Germans. I may add here, just in case anyone has any misunderstanding about this, that both sides were quite prepared; they had stockpiles to use. But in fact they were not used. In spite of the enemy we were up against, because of the horrible nature of these things and the conscience we had about them we did not use them. Since the German agents, tarun, sarin and soman, which were very powerful, were developed during the war, human ingenuity has produced even more devilish forms of nerve gases, including the V-gases, which I may point out were a British discovery round about 1955. The V-agents are a refinement of the G-gases. An invisible fraction, as Lord Chalfont has pointed out, about 5 milligrammes, of one of these on the skin is fatal. I just want to reinforce what he says: that these agents have a tremendously powerful effect in a very tiny concentration.
In the sick humour of American chemical warfare we have what are called "off the rocker" and "on the floor" agents—a jocose way of describing psychochemicals which unhinge people's minds and the paralysers. And, of course, if the people affected will not stay on the floor, there are lethal gases to make sure they do. The psychochemicals include psychodelics such as LSD, which, in the euphemism of the literature, "expands consciousness" or "enriches the mind and expands the vision". Whatever it is, the agent is supposed to make you incapable of seeing the target you are aiming at. The trouble with such agents, as has been demonstrated in their "below the counter" use in Vietnam, is that one's own troops become the addicts. So it has a back-kick effect.
348
There are such drugs to produce hallucinations and also massive brain-washing which makes soldiers incapable of obeying orders and compel them to submit. The difficulty is that not all people respond to the psychotropic drugs in the same way, and it is possible by them to induce positive homicidal tendencies: in fact, you make more vicious soldiers and enemies out of the very people you are trying to reduce. Therefore it is not a very good idea to use such drugs. But then, all army and military people will agree that these are in any circumstances very inefficient weapons.
But what we have really to beware of—and this is the point that I particularly want to emphasise—is that such drugs, psychodelics, psychotropics, hallucinators, and tranquillisers, are drugs which are described as "humane". Humane, my Lords! They do not kill outright but they may have permanent mental and emotional effects. Pro. tem., they are supposed to quieten people into submission. I warn your Lordships that we may have specious arguments (one has waited for them and in fact they have been used in America already) for their uses in a civil disturbance—riot quellers. My Lords, imagine the mass use of something like LSD!
The Motion, with my approval, seeks to ban possession, production and stockpiling. Possession includes, I hope, testing. That, too, comes under circumspection; not inspection but circumspection. We shall have difficulty with that because it is contended that if you are to protect yourself from "the other fellow" you have to think up the kind of thing that he is thinking, in order that you protect yourself against the kind of thing he may be thinking about. And of course you turn up things he never thought of; and then we are on the old treadmill again and we are in fact creating new weapons, chemical and biological.
Production and stockpiling produce persistent hazards, a long way short of their deliberate use in war. The trouble is that these weapons are difficult to dispose of. If a chemist puts a great deal of ingenuity into constructing a molecule of such devilishness it takes as much effort, and maybe as much money, to unstitch those molecules and render them safe. That is what we saw two years ago

349
in the United States of America, when they had all those tons of leaking poison gases. In order to get rid of the damaged or leaking weapons—and they were weapons—the Americans had to ship them across the continent at great hazard and dump them, without the permission of anyone but themselves, in our oceans off the Bahamas. This was because there was no way in which these weapons could be disposed of with safety anywhere near their own people.
I want to reinforce what has been said about the danger of urban guerrillas getting access to these things. Let us determine as a nation, looking to no one else—and in this case I believe there is a great demand on us to be unilateral in our convictions—and through the international initiatives that we as a nation promote, that we shall get rid of these things. The Geneva Protocol was until recent times a pretty effective deterrent. The fact is that the Americans were not signatories. It was accepted and to some extent controlled our behaviour, and became "customary international law" even among those who did not ratify or who, like ourselves, insisted on reciprocation—in other words, the right to use it if the other fellow did. I sincerely believe—and I do not think I am entirely naïve—that at this moment in time (and I accept what my noble friend said about the Stockholm Conference at least expressing the profound concern that all of us ought to have, and that apparently many people do have, about the totality of our environment), no matter where this mischief is let loose it is in the ultimate a threat to our total environment and—much worse—a threat to our whole moral attitude towards the future of mankind.
5.3 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, time is running out and I must be brief, but I hope there will be time enough to support my noble friend Lord Chalfont in his appeal to call the attention of the Government to the urgent need for an international convention prohibiting the possession, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons. The Germans in the First World War were the real instigators of this terrible use of poison, which until then had been banned during the whole history of warfare. I think that any move to establish the prohibition of any
350
form of chemical warfare should have strong support from the Germans of today, so many of whom are aware of the sins of their fathers and would welcome an opportunity to refute any connection with the older generations' horrifying attitudes in the First War.
My Lords, those few of us left who experienced the early gas attacks, and later, mustard gas, can never obliterate from our memories those gruesome spectacles of our close friends and comrades dying in such terrifying agony. I was lucky; I made sure that I had an efficient gas mask. I had a greater awareness of danger than many because before I joined the Army I was a mining student. I was more aware of lethal gases and their consequences than were other people, but the small dose I had was sufficient to generate bronchial trouble for over fifty years. In modern chemical warfare there would be no "small doses".
We should know from experience that it will take years for some of the countries to agree to independent inspection of the various kinds of weaponry, but if the majority of the other countries in the world agree to prohibit the manufacture of these terrible chemical weapons the others will be put in an awkward spot and world opinion will be against them. They will be labelled as deliberate dissenters. Therefore I think it is up to the Government and to the members of NATO to start the ball rolling. Those of us who have had actual experience of this type of horror are becoming almost extinct. All my old comrades who suffered are dead and their voices cannot be heard. It is the duty of everyone, and especially of the few of us who are left who have had the experience, to support and campaign with all our strength for action by the Government in view of the urgency of the matter, as emphasised by my noble friend Lord Chalfont and other speakers. This danger must be treated as one of the very first priorities or else we shall be in danger of the terrible horrors catalogued by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder.
5.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like first to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on his maiden speech. I hope that he will take it as being of some significance from one of the few hereditary Peers

351
who have the pleasure of sitting on this side of the House, to a new hereditary Peer, when I express the hope that he will find as much comfort and, I hope, success as I like to feel that I have found in your Lordships' House.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend on his success in the ballot and also for raising this very important subject. In many respects the subject is so complex that if it were properly dealt with it would need a much longer period of time. I hope that with the experience of this debate, and bearing in mind the importance of the subject, it may be possible through the usual channels in the next Session to get a full afternoon in which to debate this very important matter. I say this particularly to the noble Baroness who is to reply. I promise that I will be as short as I can possibly be in order to give her ample time to reply, because when I had to deal with this matter in 1969 I spoke for 45 minutes, and I well remember throwing out mountains of material that had been provided, and even then I believe that I did not deal with all the questions that had been raised.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Chalfont about these evil weapons and the urgency for the States of this world to reach an early convention, not only for the abolition of the use of these weapons but also for their final destruction. The only difficulty in regard to their destruction is that we shall never he able to remove from our scientists and technologists the knowledge and the capability of making these weapons, since much of the material that is used in them is also used in civil industrial products. I agree with my noble friend that verification is of great importance, but as I said in the debate in 1969, when we were dealing with biological weapons, if we were to insist on verification as it is understood in the military sense, then the real chances of progress would be remote, if not impossible. Therefore, when one is at a point of decision, one must seek to take a balance on the risk of whether the extent of verification is sufficient. Clearly, in the case of biological weapons the Government—the Labour Government and the Conservative Government—felt that what had been done was right, since the Conservative Government signed that Convention.
352
My Lords, in regard to this country and chemical weapons, I have looked up my own words in that debate. I hope that in the not too far distant future some noble Lords on this side of the House will be over there on the Government Front Bench and will be called upon to reply and therefore it is not merely for consistency's sake that I speak in this way. I did say on that occasion:
"We do not manufacture or stockpile chemical weapons ourselves",
but I think that if one took that speech as a whole one would recognise that Her Majesty's Government did possess CS gas. I accept that it is a chemical weapon but it was not being treated in the terms of the Geneva Protocol. That is where the difficulty may have arisen and one should make it quite clear because of the way in which the news media may well use what was said by my noble friend. If it were accepted in that way, then what I say and what other Ministers have said and what present Ministers are saying could be in dispute. I then went on in that speech to refer to the evidence that was given by the Defence Secretary, Mr. Denis Healey, in the Select Committee on Science and Technology in July, 1968. If my memory is right—and I say this to my noble friend Lord Chalfont—I think I spoke on his behalf on that occasion because he was out of the country. To the best of my knowledge, my noble friend never corrected me upon the accuracy of what I said in this House and, in particular, in reply to my noble friend Lord Brockway.
My Lords, the question of verification is very difficult indeed. For ourselves, who do not possess these weapons, then of course the matter is relatively easy. I see our role at these conferences, therefore, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, as a friendly and leading ally with the United States, using our influence, our experience and our ingenuity in trying to bridge the gap. One must understand the United States' view, because chemical weapons are not on their own; they are an integral part; they in fact stand side by side with nuclear weapons. Therefore one can understand the United States Government's view that if they arc to disarm in nuclear weapons and in chemical weapons there should he a reciprocal

353
reduction by the Soviet Union. Therefore I see our role in the Geneva Committee as that of seeking to bridge the gap between these two sides, using all our ingenuity and recognising the great difficulties with which both the Soviet Government and the United States Government are confronted.
My noble friend referred to the stockpiles of the United States. I do not think this is any secret, but I remember seeing not so long ago a paper to the effect that the Soviet Union's possible stockpile is some seven or ten times greater than that of the United States. Perhaps, therefore, a move in this direction may for the Soviet Union be of even greater difficulty than for the United States. I hope that we shall use our ingenuity and our experience at this Conference. But I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that we on this side of the House do not think that Her Majesty's Government attach the same degree of importance to the whole field of disarmament as we on this side of the House wish to see them have. I do not think it is just a question of lack of interest; I have a feeling that it is not quite as high on their list of priorities as it should be. I well remember in the Defence Debate of this year—or was it last year?—that I was rather critical of the Government White Paper on Defence. It had a passing reference to disarmament, and on not one occasion in the speech that was delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Minister of Defence, did he use the word "disarmament".
The point I would put to the noble Lady is this: that overseas Governments look with great attention at what is said and also at the personal influence of Ministers. The noble Lady went to the UNCTAD Conference the other day. She represented Her Majesty's Government and, if my memory is right, it was only within a few weeks, if not days. of her taking up her office in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She was there for only a very brief time. That we all understand, and I do not criticise her, but it was misunderstood by those at that Conference. They felt that Her Majesty's Government, the Ministers, did not have a real feeling towards that Conference. It is no good just going there and making speeches. The real work, the real gain, is made by the personal contact in the
354
corridors, in the tea-rooms, even over a glass of whisky. I hope, therefore, that the Government will recognise that it is not just what is said or what is intended but it is by showing a real, personal and continuing interest in the subject that the two sides are in the end brought together.
My Lords, I cannot help but feel that in the Committee on Disarmament there has not been quite the same attention at ministerial level as there was during the period of Labour Government, particularly when my noble friend Lord Chalfont was Minister with special responsibility for disarmament, and also my friend Mr. Mulley. It may be that officials can deliver the thoughts of Her Majesty's Government, but if there is to be any significance in it those words are best delivered by the political masters or mistresses—Ministers like the noble Baroness. So I hope that the Government will feel that Ministers ought to attend these meetings much more often.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont quoted a particular phrase—I think an unfortunate phrase—of Mr. Hainworth, when he said that the British Government had come with no decisions and no proposals. My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Baroness would have accepted that in her speech if it had been given by an official. Quite rightly it would have been cut out. That being read clearly shows that Her Majesty's Government really have very little interest in the subject, have given very little thought to it and have, therefore, very little to contribute. I do not believe that to be the case. So I do come back to my plea to Her Majesty's Government that at these Conferences, where good can be done by personal contact, Ministers should be present and remain there for sufficient time for good to come as a consequence of it.
My Lords, I hope that the Government will accept what my noble friend has said, that there is a real case of urgency in this matter. Proliferation is possible. I do not know how far these weapons are to-day possessed outside the United States or the Soviet Union. Possessed they may be, but whether they can be delivered is another matter. But with the passing of time—and I fear with tensions increasing as opposed to decreasing—I hope that the Government will recognise that these weapons could

355
spread and that the best way of preventing that is to give assurance to the Medium-sized countries (because these are the countries which are more likely to acquire these weapons) that if there is a convention in existence and all their neighbours are signatories to it, and if there is a degree of verification (this verification perhaps under the Secretary-General of the United Nations) then their chances of finding a neighbour possessing weapons which they have denied to themselves, are infinitely remote. I think this is the way in which the proliferation of these weapons can be prevented.
Therefore, there is a real case of urgency. I hope that this will be the watchword of Her Majesty's Government in this field. If it is not, I hope that the noble Baroness will take from this House this message, because I believe this is the spirit of the House, certainly of the debate of 1969, that this is a matter of urgency; that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to take initiatives, and, even if they are rebuffed, to continue to take initiatives to seek ways and means of bringing the two big Powers together in order to bring about an international convention to abolish these dreadful and evil weapons, which in turn perhaps would lead us to another convention which may ultimately lead to the abolition of all offensive weapons.
5.22 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE): My Lords, I am sure that we are all very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has raised what is without doubt a very important subject, and we know that he has himself made notable contributions to the work of arms control and disarmament. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that there has been a feeling throughout this House of the urgency of the matter under discussion. First, may I join with all those noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend on his maiden speech. It gives me particular pleasure to do so because, of course, he is a fellow Scot, and I am very glad that he should choose what is a difficult and complex debate but one which I think arouses a great deal of human anxiety. May I
356
say that I hope he will often contribute to our discussions, and it is particularly good that he should have spoken on this particular matter.
In calling your Lordships' attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did, to the urgent need for an international convention to prohibit the possession, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons in all countries, I think the House will agree that he gave us a very chilling description of some of the substances that are now in use. I felt it was rather impressive, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, has still survived to be able to tell us of his personal experiences in gas warfare. It of course gives the Government an opportunity to try to describe to the House the problems that are before us in seeking this convention, and the methods by which we believe we can get some lasting progress. I had the honour to attend the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention, which was about two months ago, although, of course, all the work on this had been done by my noble friend Lord Lothian. I should just like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that my noble friend must have attended the conference on the subject at least five times, and now that the responsibility has been taken over by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, he has already visited the Conference in Geneva. I should like it to be made clear that the Government share the concern of the House as a whole, but at the same time we must realise what are the kinds of problems that we have to face.
The Biological Weapons Convention carries a commitment to continue negotiations in good faith for a ban on the possession of chemical weapons, and we accept that commitment. For over forty years we have had a ban on the use of chemical weapons resting upon the 1925 Geneva Protocol. By trying to ban the possession of chemical weapons, we shall, of course, remove the power to retaliate in kind. Therefore, we have to ensure that all States will have adequate confidence that there is no likelihood of concealed stockpiles being kept or of secret production being undertaken. Because, my Lords, however much we may care about the horrors of contemporary chemical weapons, they are a military reality. We know that the Soviet Union

357
possesses a very considerable chemical warfare capability, and although they are very reticent on the subject they have never denied that they have these weapons. The United States also has these weapons, and they consider that they should continue to keep a retaliatory capability as a deterrent against chemical attack. But I think it should also be said that since 1969 the United States Army has not acquired or produced any lethal or incapacitating biological or chemical warfare agents other than in research quantities. I think we should be aware in this House that this gesture has yet to be matched by the Soviet Union.
As was said clearly in an exchange across the Floor of the House, the United Kingdom does not possess any stocks of lethal chemical weapons of its own. We did in fact hold a retaliatory capability during the Second World War, as did the other principal Allied Powers, and we believe it did in fact deter the enemy at that time from starting gas warfare, but we allowed this retaliatory capability to lapse in the 1950s.
I was asked specifically by the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Shepherd and Lord Brockway, whether in fact we have any chemical weapons as such. The answer as given in another place was perfectly correct, but, of course, it did not include the riot control agent CS, which has been referred to by several noble Lords, which we do manufacture and stockpile in, I am happy to say, relatively small quantities.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to confirm the statement that Great Britain has no chemical weapons for war purposes other than CS gas? That is the only weapon we have?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is exactly what I was trying to make clear to the House. We do not have, we do not make, or produce, or stockpile lethal chemical weapons. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester asked me about the whole question of napalm and why it was not being considered at this particular conference in the Committee on Disarmament. I listened to what he said with very great interest. It has not been included. It is considered an incendiary device. However, the United Nations
358
Secretary-General is engaged in a separate study of napalm in the context of what has been called by some noble Lords, "causing unnecessary suffering," and when this is completed, we shall of course see whether there is anything practical that can be done.
There was also a point raised, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, about defoliants. We do not possess these weapons at all ourselves, and I understand that the United States has phased out the use of anti-crop weapons in Vietnam. It is of course common knowledge that any country with a modern chemical industry can produce chemical weapons, quite possibly in conditions of secrecy. This will be very well known to the chemist in our ranks, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. Therefore the technical problems in reaching agreement on the CW Convention—if I may call it by its initials as it takes so much less time—are very difficult indeed.
One also has to consider the need to define the chemical agents which are relevant to chemical warfare on which controls are needed, and those chemical agents and their manufacturing processes which could be converted to chemical weapon production, although they are relevant also to peaceful industrial and medical activities. Therefore we have to consider not only the agents but the industrial processes which could be relevant to a ban on CW. When these have been identified we have to consider three main things: how to give assurances that the production and possession of chemical weapons has been completely stopped; how to place obstacles in the way of a secret programme of CW rearmament which would make it both difficult and expensive; and, thirdly, how to give early warning of any unlawful production or possession of CW.
These questions involve a careful examination of the processes involved in the production programme and a practical system of verification to which many noble Lords in particular have referred. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing suggested some of the technical processes which might help verification and we have had suggestions for satellite observation, remote sensors, exchanges of economic and other data, but we have not yet reached agreement on how these

359
systems could work or whether they would give what is a very necessary assurance. If we do achieve a system of verification of a ban on CW we have to devise an effective and acceptable system for its enforcement and the protection of those who observe it in good faith.
It was for this reason, despite what has been said about it, that we have called for a meeting of experts on these difficult technical questions next month. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, "Surely everything is already known ", and this was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. But as I understand it the work of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute did not deal in adequate detail with the methods of verification of chemical disarmament. They reviewed the various possibilities and suggested those which might appear promising, but it is the detailed examination of some of these verification possibilities which we feel needs the attention of experts on a matter of such vital importance, particularly, if I may say so, to this country which tries to observe any undertaking which it gives. During this meeting of experts we hope to continue discussion on how to define the classes of the most dangerous and lethal agents that we could ban. We also expect to put a Paper to this meeting which will examine in detail some aspects of surveillance. This is in order to identify which technical methods would offer practical control and verification.
Of course, one of the essential matters that we still have to do in this meeting is to ensure a wide enough acceptance by the Soviet bloc as well as by the West of the need for really adequate verification methods. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, "Why do we not take a risk?", and I thought, if I may say so, that that question was rather echoed by the noble Lord who opened this debate. But as I knew that he was such an expert on these matters, I looked up some of the matters which he has raised on the subject of verification and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said as recently as April 30, 1970:
"Before we can decide on what represents an adequate level of certainty in a particular case we must know what reliance we can place on the technical methods of verification available to us."
360
I can only say that I entirely agree with that remark, and this is what we are trying to do. We consider that the Working Paper tabled by the United States delegation in Geneva on March 20 has shown a great many detailed questions that still need to be resolved, particularly as regards the definition of what chemical substances can and should be banned.
There are two main possibilities. First, we should perhaps try to cover all possible CW agents in a comprehensive ban. That would be very difficult because some chemicals that have lethal properties in war, chlorine and phosgene for instance, are also of basic importance in industry and civilian life, which is why the subject is of such interest to laymen. The alternative is to concentrate on the extremely lethal or super toxic agents, as the Swedes call them, which are primarily the nerve gases. But there does arise the question of where to draw the line, what degree of toxicity has to be regarded as the lower limit. And there is also the complication of the binary weapon, which, as the House knows, is a weapon in which two non-lethal chemical substances arc combined at the final stage of delivery to form a toxic gas. The Swedish Government have strongly favoured the second approach and we think the Americans seem inclined also to follow this line. We believe that that may offer a practical solution, and we are therefore making a careful study of this matter; but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he said, "Do not fall for the partial approach".
My Lords, a week after the presentation of the American work programme the Soviet Union and its allies tabled a draft convention which reproduced almost exactly the provisions of the BW Convention. We thought it necessary to criticise the Soviet draft on the grounds that it does not offer an adequate basis for negotiation. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, seemed rather keen on this draft, but we felt that it was inadequate for two main reasons: first, it does not deal with the identification and definition of the relevant chemical agents and their production processes and. secondly, is intended to be a proposal for a comprehensive prohibition; but it contains practically no proposal for the necessary security assurances and in essence reverts to the

361
1968 position. The Soviet Union claims that we can deal with CW in the same way as BW. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will know why we decided that it was not possible to deal with it in exactly the same way.
As Ambassador Hainworth has been so much quoted in this debate I feel it only fair to point out what was said on this matter in his speech. He said that if you looked at the Soviet draft, because of the special nature of biological weapons and the current stage of their development and deployment it was possible to conclude an agreement immediately banning their production and stockpiling without any verification, and it was possible in the unique case of biological weapons to rely on the complaints procedure to deter any would-be violators. But a complaints procedure is not verification, nor is there provision for consultation between States. That is exactly what was said by the Swedish representative, Mrs. Myrdal.
I know that the noble Lord has to have two minutes in which to reply to this debate. Therefore I would only say in conclusion that we have not ourselves put forward proposals because we feel that we must do this detailed work first. This is the approach supported by the Western members and by some of the leading non-aligned countries. We shall go on trying, with great patience and with persistence to try and reach an agreement which is acceptable to all concerned.
5.40 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, very briefly, with the leave of the House, I wish to express my gratitude for the chance to initiate this debate. I congratulate the maiden speaker on a speech which was brief, good-humoured and impressively well-informed. May I also thank all other noble Lords for the interest which they have shown in this important subject. I should like to apologise if, perhaps in an excessive search for accuracy, I created any confusion in the minds of your Lordships about chemical weapons in this country. I am of course fully aware that we do not manufacture lethal chemical weapons. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for the courtesy and fullness of her reply in a comparatively short space of time, and to express my good
362
wishes to her and to the delegation in Geneva for their future success. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OIL AND NATURAL GAS: RETURNS AND DEVELOPMENT
5.41 p.m.
LORD BALOGH LORD BALOGH rose to call attention to the failure of Her Majesty's Government to assure the maximum benefit for the country from the discovery of oil and natural gas in and around the British Continental Shelf; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the discovery of oil and gas in our part of the Continental Shelf has certainly been a dramatic turn of events. After sixty years of unsuccessful search, and after the discovery of the Gröningen field in Holland, we have at last succeeded in discovering oil and gas in vast quantities in our part of the Continental Shelf. In order to give your Lordships an idea of the quantities and the values involved, I must beg for some patience. It is a dreary subject, but a very important one. Also, I must point out that the estimates are still growing daily so far as natural gas is concerned, enormously enhanced by the new fact that gas will be produced not merely as a primary production from the gasfields in the South, but also as an ancillary effect of the working of the oilfields themselves. Indeed, it is probable that these discoveries might be of the same order of magnitude as the gasfields in the South.
The estimates for the gasfields have been improving from year to year. In 1965–66, they amounted to between 1,000 million and 1,500 million cubic feet per day. That was then somewhere between one-third and one-half of the gas consumption. The output is now estimated at 4,000 million cubic feet per day assured, and it is likely to rise to 6,000 million cubic feet per day or more, especially if the gas from the Norwegian gasfields, from the Ekofisk and the ancillary fields there, also has to be landed in Britain. This under-estimate of the gas discovery is vitally important, because at the lower level the gas could have been sold on the domestic market for cooking and heating, whereas at the

363
higher level, and especially at the future higher level the gas must be sold in mass markets. The figure of 6,000 million cubic feet per day is equivalent to some 80 million tons of coal and its value, at the most recently fixed price of 1½p per therm, is some £300 million per annum, which is equivalent to £6,000 million over the estimated life of the field. I must say that I think these estimates about the life of the field are generally under-estimates. As I shall show, this has been proved not only here but in other parts of the world.
The oil discovery is even more startling. British Petroleum, according to the Sunday Times of May 14, 1972, puts the likely production in the 1980s at 150 million tons per annum. Philips has made a somewhat lower estimate of 100 million tons, and the Department, as usual, has filed lower figures, and these departmental figures must be strictly disregarded. On the other estimates that I have quoted the discovery is worth between £800 million and £1,200 million per annum at present prices, but if the Middle Eastern countries continue to squeeze us they will be worth proportionately more. Taking a duration of 20 years, which is a conservative estimate, we are here concerned with a total natural resource of between £16,000 million and £24,000 million. All experience suggests, moreover, that gas and oil fields of this importance grow rather than diminish when they are explored. That was the case in Texas, in Louisiana, in Venezuela and in the Arab countries.
These totals need to be put in perspective. In 1971, our total imports of oil amounted to 108 million tons; that is to say, just above the figure given by Philips and somewhat below the figure given by B.P. They were valued at £960 million. That represented one-ninth of our total imports, and there was a troublesome high rate of increase in oil imports. It is therefore not astonishing that a colossal hubbub and hullabaloo followed, especially in the popular Press, even though the Department and the oil companies for a very long time played it not merely cool but frozen. There has been much written about the bonanzas under the sea; about the Eldorados about to be opened for Britain, but more especially for Scotland.
The B.B.C. showed a television programme about three weeks ago—and a very misleading picture it gave, too. They are at it again to-night. The extraordinary physical feats of rigs moving about and withstanding fearful seas in the mist-covered wastes of the North Atlantic: who can find a better theme to glorify? The dangers to which the men on the seas are exposed obviously made punctilious analysis of the consequences distasteful. Yet little, if any, effect, save for land speculators in Aberdeen, followed; and until very recently—perhaps stimulated to some extent by my persistence in asking troublesome Questions in this House—very little attention was paid to the ways and means by which the treasure would be handled by the Government, and to the advantages which would be reaped by this country.
What, then, are the ways by which this country can benefit? There are three distinct ways of gaining. In the first place, there is a possibility of securing a cheaper price for energy than our competitors. This would be of very great help indeed to energy-intensive industries, for these mostly heavy industries have been suffering from grave competitive pressures from abroad. Secondly, there is the benefit to the British taxpayer through payments of taxes and royalties, or through the direct participation of the State or some public sector board in the operation and in its profits. All this would be the more important as it would represent, if home-produced oil were substituted for oil produced abroad, and if the value of the oil remained at home and was not remitted abroad, a great saving in the balance of payments, which is under constant threat. Thirdly, and finally, there could be benefits from secondary activities directly or indirectly caused by the discovery and landing in Britain of oil and gas, either to sustain the production of oil through building rigs, oil pipes, and supplying the needs of everybody manning the oil rigs, or as cheap raw material for the first category; that is to say, in order to make prices in the petrochemical industries cheaper.
So far as the first of these gains is concerned—cheap price—we can rule out oil, except, perhaps, for those local regions like Aberdeen. which might benefit from a shift of oil refinery locations and of some ancillary petrochemical

365
industry. Generally speaking, the price of oil in Britain will continue to be determined by the Persian Gulf prices and the cost of shipment from the Gulf, because the demand of the Western European countries cannot be met by the North Sea gas and oil. Thus, any increase in the price of Persian or Iraqi oil, or of gas from Algeria, et cetera, will increase the North Sea gas and oil prices. Hence, any advantage to be gained from oil as against gas can be and must be only through British participation. This is a topic to which we shall return in a minute.
So far as gas is concerned, the story is very different. Here, the Continental Shelf Act, probably as a result of the heritage of the more earthy Victorian monopoly condition, makes it obligatory for the producer to offer all gas except that used for chemical foodstocks to the Gas Council, provided the latter offers a reasonable price (Section 9(2) and (3), and especially Section 9(3)(a) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964). In case of disagreement the Minister has the power of arbitration. This is indeed a formidable power. It implies, among other things, the right to ask, as the American Federal Power Commission does in its automatic routine procedure—because they are so anti-capitalist—and as both the Danes and the Norwegians contemplate, for an opening of the books as a proof of costs, to see how those costs, risks and profits work out at the proposed price.
This statutory power by implication would seem to me to make it the duty of the Minister to ascertain these facts and account accordingly. This duty does not seem to have been carried out by any recent Minister, as we heard in Answers to a number of Questions posed by me in this House. The Minister admitted that these elementary data, which all countries, from the smallest Arab sheikhdom down and up to the United States of America, get as of right, seem not to be available here. In fact, the Minister does not seem to have been involved in the latest price determination, which jumped the price from 2·875 old pence per therm to 3·6 old pence per therm. This, I think, is a clear dereliction of duty. What is even more astonishing is that the petroleum department of the Ministry of Power, now the
366
Department of Trade and Industry, dared to assert through the Minister that they cannot get these figures, when they know that everybody knows that the Coal Board and the Gas Council are partners in various consortia, and that those consortia, being under American control, have indeed most excellent accountancy facilities. Still, at 2·875 old pence the oil companies had made great concessions, and even at 3·6 old pence per therm the supplies are at a slightly lower price than arc the supplies at the disposal of many other countries—but not all. For instance, Russia gets its oil at a much cheaper price. I shall presently try to show what this means, nevertheless, in terms of profits for the oil companies and their impact on the balance of payments.
How about royalties and taxes? The oil companies are expected to pay 12½ per cent. royalty on oil and gas. This is superficially in line with the conditions enforced in the OPEC countries, and this fact has been pointed out by Mr. MacFadzean, the chairman-elect of Shell, who. however, omitted to say that so far as the Arab countries and Venezuela are concerned this was the least important of the provisions. Through the fixing of the posted price above what is claimed to be the actual transfer or selling price, by having direct taxes and participation, the OPEC countries exact a share of profit between 75 and 85 per cent., not 12½ per cent. The OPEC countries discovered the complexity of the problems involved with vertically integrated multinational companies, when British-trained economists took over. They have not yet taken over in the Department. They made effective a posted price more in line with the world situation. Indeed, the oil companies complain that the price is now higher than would be compatible with a legitimate return on downstream operations, though they do not mention the fact that the insensate oligopolistic competition, which takes the form, as we only too well know, of the wasteful proliferation of vastly costly retail points in garages, et cetera, is probably as much to blame as the Arabs.
An early recovery from this situation is very difficult to foresee. Existing United Kingdom petroleum regulations are hopelessly inadequate, in respect both to rent and to the surrender of the licence.

367
The rent rises from £25 per square kilometre to £290 per square kilometre. All this is derisory when profits are in the hundreds of millions. It is true that 15 blocks were auctioned and yielded £37 million, but this only highlights the lost opportunities; and, of course, these auctions have been discontinued, and they did not really claw back the whole of the profits. It is true that the companies must surrender half their territory after six years, but the relevant regulations are so lax as to enable the retention by the companies of the valuable territories. A recovery from our mistakes is therefore only possible if there were a complete change of attitude on the part of the Government.
There is, of course, the corporation tax, at 40 per cent. That does not sound little. In reality, double tax agreements, plus the fact that profit participation, royalty tax, and so on, paid to foreign Governments are expendable against British taxation, result in the oil companies having to pay very little tax here, although the introduction of the corporation tax by Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Kaldor has at least prevented the scandal that repayments of income tax paid by the oil companies to the Arabs were made to the British shareholders by the British Treasury. The profits of the North Sea are, therefore, pure gold to most of them.
There was therefore from the outset an overwhelming case for some sort of State participation in the operation. 'This has been increasingly done in Europe. It is being done in Holland and France; it is about to be done in Norway and Denmark. How is this to be managed? I leave aside, of course, confiscation without or with only insufficient compensation. The State could physically obtain part of the output and sell it itself. It could participate in the direct profits. This would have to be policed both as to price and as to costs, because arm's length sales, sales in the open market, are a rarity in the oil business. It could finally obtain a share in the syndicate or go into the business itself. All these forms have, at one time or another, been practised in Europe and outside.
In this country the Gas Council and the National Coal Board had, until the
368
change of Government in 1970, an increasing share in the syndicates. This was accomplished only under the most tremendous pressure by the central economic Departments, the Treasury, the D.E.A. and the Cabinet Office, on the Petroleum Department, which was forced to permit the participation of the Coal Board in a few of these consortia—the process is described by the noble Lord, Lord Robens—and the Gas Board has also been a member of the consortia. This participation started, so far as the Gas Board is concerned, at 31 per cent. in the case of the Leman Bank, and it increased to 50 per cent. in the face of the indefatigable consortia. Later on the Irish Sea was completely reserved for the public hand, and generally preference given to consortia having at least 50 per cent. participation by the British public hand. Although some of the new licences in the most interesting Northern territories have British participation and even British public board participation, the British share of the total has lamentably fallen and the condition that all consortia have participation has been tacitly waived.
What was the consequence of these hesitations confounded by amateurishness? The first contract of 5 old pence per therm for a field which was very advantageously situated in the case of B.P. was at least excusable by lack of practice and lack of knowledge; and anyway it was half recovered by the B.P. being half owned by the public hand. It also had a re-negotiation clause which has disappeared from the rest of the contracts. This fact is very important because if, as the oil companies assert, they were doubtful about the size of the fields, they would not have shown such bitter resistance against short-term contracts allowing re-negotiation of the price. As the cost of production is far higher on small fields than it is on the large fields, if indeed they had expected very small fields they would obviously have opted for short-term contracts in order to re-negotiate the contracts at a higher price. They seem to have been very optimistic indeed about the prospects and, as usual, rightly so.
The oil companies, secondly, assert that the investment is very heavy and therefore they cannot give up part of the profits or accept price regulation for

369
gas as has been laid down. In particular, Mr. MacFadzean refers to a one-in-twenty ratio of the number of successful wells out of the total number of wells. Yet the Petroleum Handbook published by his own corporation in 1959—that is to say. when the technique was very much less developed—states on pages 71–72:
"…no scientific exploration successful, ratio one in thirty; geological and geophysical exploration successful, ratio one in five."
These are based on U.S. figures. If those from the world outside, and particularly the Middle East, were available they would put modern exploration ratios in an even more favourable light.
The share prospectus of Oil Exploration (Holdings) Limited, of which we shall hear more in a minute, says:
"The U.K. sector of the North Sea is now regarded by the oil companies as one of the most attractive and promising areas in the world."
And rightly so! The Conoco Company published two weeks ago a success ratio of 6 out of 9 wells. This is very different from 1 in 20. In my recollection the total success ratio, certainly at the time when I knew the figures, was below 1 in 10.
All experts outside the charmed circle suspected that even the Labour Government's price for North Sea gas would yield exorbitant profits payable mostly in foreign exchange to foreign companies. But both the Labour and the Conservative Governments have successfully resisted efforts to obtain precise information. Lately, however, there have been two indications which confirmed the suspicions of those who were sceptical. Lord Robens in his autobiography, which I have already quoted, boasted that the Coal Board, on its half share of the Conoco Consortium, stands to gain £200 million over 25 years on what then was stated to be a one-sixth share of the supply. This means that the total profits over 25 years on the Conoco basis for the whole country at the lower rate of supply will amount to profits of £2,600 million—and this on an investment which has never been stated to be higher than £200 million! These figures are confirmed by the prospectus of Oil Exploration (Holdings) Limited which I am not going to quote.
So far as oil is concerned, the situation is worse. Sir David Barran, the retiring Chairman of Shell, estimated that as much as £2,500 million would be spent in a decade, £of which £1,000 million will be in operating expenses, for the total of the oil field. This sounds formidable. If we take his more detailed break-down, things look different. The total investment for a decade for a field of 12·5 million tons per annum (250,000 barrels per day), a field much like the Forties (but Forties might become very much bigger) represents £250 million, of which £100 million is in platforms and production facilities, £70 million in production wells, £65 million in off-shore trunk lines and £15 million in shore facilities—Scotland please note!
It is likely that the cost will fall as experience increases and output grows. But if you look at the value of the output of this sort of field which cost £250 million to develop in the first decade, it is between £80 million and £120 million per annum. On a 20-year basis—and of course in the second decade the whole investment would not have to be repeated—it would mean something like £1,600 to £2,400 million; which, I must say, on £250 million invested is not bad going. It will certainly last much more than a decade. The end result is that the investment will be amortised in a very small period indeed; and we do not yet know whether in one way or another some of the investment will not be paid out by the Government in terms of grants. The whole capital expenditure, needless to say, is completely free of tax and new proposals for the reform of corporation tax will mean the distribution of profit will be encouraged rather than the "plough back".
Mr. Waddams, who was with Shell and then was a successful advisor on oil questions, estimates that on a production of a billion barrels a year, Government revenue in Britain will be between £80 million as against the £800 million which would be exacted by Libya under the same conditions. I think from what I have said before on the basis of balance figures, that this is an underestimate.
I do not have to emphasise that a very large part of this minimum saving of £700 million per annum will be exported to America, thus reducing the saving on the

371
import of oil as a result of the discovery of oil in our own territory to very modest proportions indeed. Thus doubts about the future of our British balance of payments and the desire by Britain to receive from this splendid gift of Nature as much as possible, and certainly as much as politically unstable sheikhdoms were able to obtain, cannot be laughed off (as Mr. MacFadzean has done in an article) as an attack of xenophobia. In any case, I am a "xenos" I cannot hate myself; and I do not.
In the case of these, mostly North American, oil companies, the old saying that what is good for General Motors is good for the country, applies even less. What is regrettable is that Mr. MacFadzean's assertion was not generally greeted with the Homeric derision evoked by the more justifiable comments of Engine Charley Wilson, the President of General Motors, who became Defence Secretary, when he made this heroic statement.
What about the consequential boom; this terrific boom? Up to the end of 1970 (we do not have any figures after 1970) 26 platforms involving 60,000 tons of steel were placed in the North Sea. Of these, 96 per cent. had been fabricated in the Netherlands and 4 per cent. in Germany. Of these, U.S. contractors erected 74 per cent., Italians 15 per cent. and Dutch 11 per cent. There were 177 miles of pipeline laid—mostly 30 inches in diameter—weighing 75,500 tons. Here again, the contractors were 95 per cent. United States and 4½ per cent. Netherlands; 83 per cent. of the pipe was manufactured in Japan and came round the world 9½ per cent. manufactured in Germany; 7½ per cent. in France. The total investment amounted to £375 million, of which the United Kingdom share was insignificant. These melancholy figures have been given by the Society of Underwater Technologists and they have never been contradicted.
My Lords, to end, I do not believe that this happened as a result of wickedness or corruption. In a way, I wish that it had. We could then find a quick, if radical, remedy. No; it happened as the result of the wrong organisation of the Government; as a result of ignorance and a desire to please. Civil servants have been called on to perform duties for which they were not trained and which would have
372
made their relations with the industry with which they are supposed to work very difficult. They have chosen on each occasion the wrong way, because it was the easy way out. They hoped to give a good example to OPEC and we lost out both to the Arabs and also to the Americans. The system of frequently changing Ministers is a second great obstacle to progress. These are complicated matters, not learned in a few weeks. They are also deep-seated matters, and very unlikely to be remedied in the short-run. I must therefore, my Lords, sorrowfully conclude that the outlook for our prosperity, for our balance of payments, is indeed sombre; and if any of your Lordships has any doubts about the ultimate causes of this unpleasing state of affairs, I fear that I have none. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.12 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I must welcome this opportunity given by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, to speak in this debate. It is quite difficult to follow the noble Lord because of the technical knowledge and expertise that he has in his subject. It is a bit easier for me, because I am going to speak on only one aspect of the matter: regional development and its effects following the new discoveries of oil and natural gas round the British Continental Shelf. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh. mentioned Scotland. I think that everyone in Scotland is conscious of what is going on and what is about to happen. He also raised a 64,000-dollar question—or is it a 64 million dollar question? The Government must now be in a position to clarify some of the issues he raised and everyone in Scotland, regardless of political affiliation, is waiting for the answer.
As has been said by the noble Lord. Lord Balogh, the discovery of oil and natural gas in and around the British Continental Shelf is one of the most important economic factors to be considered when anticipating the future prosperity of our nation. Let us not lose this golden opportunity. A great deal has been spoken in your Lordships' House and outside it about the future of Scottish development with this new source of potential wealth. There was the debate last November initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, on the Scottish economy and the conference on

373
oil and Scotland's future held at Aviemore this year, when the subject was covered adequately. Men, dedicated men, working through Government bodies, the Scottish Council, the Highlands and Islands Development Board—all have plans by the basketload awaiting the go-ahead, although the dust may already be beginning to settle on some of them, such as the Hunterston and Oceanspan projects.
Hunterston emerged only briefly to-day from the gloom of uncertainty which surrounds it, with the publication of the long-awaited Interim Report. This was referred to in your Lordships' House during the debate on the Scottish economy. Unfortunately, this Report, about which I have seen only a brief newspaper article, appears to raise more questions than it solves. I wonder why? Can it be that the anticipated revenue might be debatable, or might not be as large as the Government have initially indicated. I hope not. And assuming for the moment that this is not the case, there is no definite commitment yet by the Government to improve the infrastructure to match the investment by the oil companies in Scotland. Port facilities on the East Coast remain inadequate and the deep water terminal at the Greenfield site is still a dream. New airports are still unbuilt and traffic north of Perth is governed by the pace of the slowest caravan trailer, as anyone knows who has been on those roads. And there are still the unemployed.
It does not add up, my Lords. There is a huge unfulfilled public works programme to provide work and a huge source of revenue to pay for and exploit it. Yet nothing appears to be happening. The only practical reason that comes to mind is that besides the apparent lack of resources to finance these projects there is a lack of communication between the various Government Departments involved in them, due to the centralised policy pursued by Whitehall. If I may, I should like to give one or two examples. Perhaps they are well known to your Lordships.
Scottish policy for infrastructure is mainly governed by the Scottish Office, which, in turn, is limited by the annual allocation of funds from the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry.
374
Manufacturing companies and oil companies have to rely on the Department of Trade and Industry for financial and other aid. Investment in improved port facilities depends upon the Department of the Environment, with help and advice from the National Ports Council. Investment in airports rests with the British Airports Authority, but the regulation of air services with the new Civil Aviation Authority. Research and development is through the Department of Trade and Industry; training and employment is with the Department of Employment and its various advisory bodies. There are more examples. In every case they look at Scotland and other under-privileged areas through the eyes of their own Departments.
This is not to say that nothing is happening. Far from it. It is rather that, when dealing with the regions, Government Departments can mistake activity for achievement. This frame of mind is often brought about in Government or commercial organisations when there is not enough money to implement the projects on which they are working.
I believe that the remedy for this misapplication of effort and control must lie first with the Government who should recognise the need for decentralisation; and secondly, that regions such as Scotland should have their own development authorities, with powers from the various Ministries concerned, to implement policies for infrastructure and an integrated regional development programme. Some of your Lordships may recall that Dr. W. S. Robertson of the Scottish Council called for just such a body in his excellent Paper, entitled Issues for Scotland, at the Second Industrial Forum at Aviemore, discussing the theme which I mentioned earlier, oil and Scotland's future. Mr. Russell Johnston, the Liberal M.P. for Inverness, followed up this suggestion at the same Conference when he urged the need for a development bank to finance these projects managed by the development authority. This also has been established Liberal policy for a considerable time.
Finally, my Lords, I doubt whether the Government are as blind to these opportunities as they like to appear. Surely they have not forgotten the "Declaration of Perth" made by the Prime Minister of the day in 1967; or

375
the promise of a White Paper on the subject during this Parliamentary Session. I would quote Russell Johnston again. At the Scottish Liberal Conference last weekend he called for support from all political Parties, and also the Scottish T.U.C., for a Scottish Movement, the aim of which would be to attain a Scottish Legislative Parliament which could deal with all the items I have mentioned, and especially the position of the foreign oil companies operating from Scottish bases. As recently as to-day, forward-looking Tory Members of Parliament have published a booklet advocating a policy of decentralisation. and they conclude by saying that the regions will never thrive if they have to depend on Whitehall for stimulus.
There is still hope that something will be done soon. I think that the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, must be an encouragement to all, regardless of Party, who are interested in the future welfare of Scotland. The views that he expressed in a memorable speech in a debate on the Scottish economy in your Lordships' House last November must be the guideline of a policy which he is now in a position to implement, be it on the application of oil revenues or Scottish regional development. If he finds himself powerless to bring this about because of Whitehall control, I trust that he will say so, and I think he may find new friends from many quarters in Scotland if he does.
In conclusion, my Lords, only by calling for integrated regional development can the maximum benefit be derived from these new discoveries of oil and gas off our shores. It is not parochialism to say so, nor is it sterile nationalism: it is just plain economic sense.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I should like just to reply to him on this one point. So far, no oil royalties have been earned. Some £6 million or so has been earned by way of royalties on gas delivered to this country. It may therefore be a minute or two premature to attempt to spend in advance the oil royalties to which we look forward. I would only make the point to the noble Lord before passing
376
on that if we are going to press the Government to make an allocation of oil royalties for development, the prudent thing would be to do this on a United Kingdom basis. We do not yet know where all the oil is to be found. There is the Celtic Sea to be considered, and there are other areas to be considered which have not so far been explored at all. I would only press for this to be regarded on a United Kingdom development area basis rather than on a purely Scottish basis.
I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for introducing this Motion. I congratulate Lord Balogh on his success in the ballot, and say how much I enjoyed his speech, based on such wide experience. I know the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that on one or two points I could not quite follow his figures. He quoted a figure from the Continental Oil Company for the number of dry wells found out of the total number drilled. I can only say that that is a quite different figure from the one I was given when I visited their jack-up drilling rig, the "Off-Shore Mercury", a few weeks ago. Be that as it may, surely the real issue is whether the oil industry is to be treated as a goose fat enough for the roasting, or whether it is to face a strenuous diet to build up its strength and that of the energy-hungry economy around it.
I begin by drawing attention to the Hougardy Report to the European Parliament's Committee for Energy Research and Nuclear Questions, which was accepted by the European Parliament in April. It concludes:
"Governments should be concerned more with obtaining maximum performance from the oil companies than in maximising tax receipts."
Even in the British sector there have not been a great many takers for the blocks that have been on offer. Of the total areas offered for licence, covering about 250,000 square miles, only one-fifth—some 50,000 or 60,000 square miles—are being operated under licences that are now in effect.
There are three alternative approaches to licensing. The first method, widely canvassed, is by auction. This was tried on 15 blocks to test the market last summer, and one hopes, for reasons

377
which will become clear in a moment, that that auction will not be repeated. The auction system gives the auctioneer no control over subsequent operations. It provides no check on the worthiness of the highest bidder. It provides no check on subsequent sub-letting or re-sale. It provides no check on the sheer financial speculation that could arise—for example, some Middle East sheikhdom buying into North Sea oil as into the London property market. Above all, the auction system provides no means of coercing the major companies into exploring the less attractive areas, although this is a long-established method in British administration, applied, for example, in the public transport and airlines licensing. Finally, the auction system syphons off capital which it is in the British interest to see invested in exploration.
The second method that can be used, and which I understand has been advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is to impose, or at any rate very strongly induce, nationalised industry participation. This was tried out in rounds 2 and 3 of the licence issues in 1965 and 1970. In round 2, in which the Liverpool Bay figured largely, nationalised industry participation was made an absolute requirement. The result was that, for lack of applicants, little more than one-tenth of the area on offer could be licensed. There were 1,106 blocks; there were no more than 21 applicants. In the end, 127 blocks went, which works out at about 10 per cent. of the area on offer. That is at least one consequence, I submit, of imposing the condition of nationalised industry participation. In round 3, when this condition had been relaxed somewhat, there were a few more applicants willing to have a go. This time there were 157 blocks available. Some 34 applicants appeared, as against 21 previously—that is to say, half as many again—and in the end 106 blocks were licensed, which comes to more than 60 per cent. of the area on offer.
It has been suggested here and there in the Press, and also (I believe I did not mishear him) by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that this requirement of nationalised industry participation was in some way quietly dropped by the Government. Not a bit! The criteria have been pub
378
1lished for each round. In round 4, with that requirement dropped overtly and openly there have been 92 applicants, instead of 21 or 34, and something like half of the 42,000 square miles offered has in fact been licensed.
That builds up the case for the third method, which is licensing by discretion against known defined criteria. The objective—and surely this will be common ground—is that Britain should aim at a spread of interest to bring technology and finance to the United Kingdom; that it should be a British interest to impose a work programme to secure maximum exploration; that it should be a British interest to exclude mere speculators, and a British interest to obtain a reasonable British involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, just now made a reference to the system by which licences, or parts of them, must be surrendered after six years; and he remarked, as I understood him, that this enabled the exploring companies to hold on to the best hits. But, my Lords, that is the purpose of the surrender provision: it is to make it worth while for companies to explore their area thoroughly so as to decide which are in their interest the best bits to surrender and which are not.
The accomplishment of the British policy of discretion compares very well with that of our neighbours who have chosen to press for national public sector participation. Out of more than 500 holes drilled in the North Sea no fewer than 380, or 76 per cent., have been drilled in the British sector; no more than 70 have been driven in the Norwegian sector, despite the very attractive geological conditions. No more than 70 in the Dutch; no more than half a dozen in the German, and fewer than half a dozen in the Danish. These figures may not tally exactly, because they may be taken at points in time which are separated by a month or two, but they are approximately correct.
Thanks to the extensive exploration which has been encouraged by British policy in the last six years, at least 20 offshore geological structures have been identified. No fewer than six oil or oil and gas fields have been delimited in Northern waters, quite apart from the gasfields off the East Anglian coast. The orders of magnitude have been referred to and hardly need restressing, but it

379
may be worthwhile to illustate by saying that a jack-up mobile drilling rig for exploration of gas, off East Anglia—which is easier because the water is shallower—is about half the size of a small London square when your helicopter lands on top of it. Its legs are each about equal to the girth of a church tower and the multi-well development platform is substantially larger. The production and the manifolding platform is as large as a very large London Square and about twice the size of the Square in which I live. They stand in about 100 feet of water; they stand about 100 feet above the water, and they may be on piles going anything up to 100 feet into the seabed. That, my Lords, is in the gasfield off East Anglia, which is relatively easy.
In the Northern reaches of the North Sea where oil is to be found, a production platform will be taller than the Post Office Tower and will contain about as much steel as almost two spans of the Forth Bridge. It will cost the best part of £10 million. Much of the investment is abortive. Whether or not the figure is one or eight dry holes out of ten, I have not the technical knowledge to say, but I am told by a number of different oil companies, oil men and drillers alike, that the average is about eight dry holes out of ten. Each hole needs anything from three to nine weeks to drill and will cost anything up to a million pounds. To develop a single field is not just a question of finding one prolific well: many trial and development wells are required, and to secure the balanced use of a field it may be that half a dozen production platforms, each with a dozen wells, may be needed, to say nothing of the central platform and point for collecting the oil. Quite a number of holes, although oil-bearing, have been sealed up, pending the discovery of other and sufficient reserves nearby to justify a common-user pipeline ashore.
Going back for a moment to the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh (which came, I think, from Sir David Barran), if one is thinking that a field is going to cost something in the order of £250 million to develop, that is about the price of one moon shot. The scale is so great. When one speaks of £1,500 million over ten years and another £1,000 million—not £100 million, as he suggested—for
380
development and exploitation, even nationalised industries under a Socialist Government might quail. The scale is so vast that traditional competitors have been forced to combine.
The taxpayer comes out remarkably well. His only cost is the long familiar practice of allowing United Kingdom losses to be set off against overseas profits. There is the same enjoyment of investment allowances, and so on, as other industries have, and all this at no extra direct cost to the taxpayer. In return, a major resource is unearthed and a potential £400 million a year saving on the balance of payments is uncovered; and even if the oil is exported, that will still ease the balance of payments. A whole new range of industrial development is opened up. To take one case at Nigg Bay, in Scotland, at the Brown & Root site there 700 Highlanders are being trained as riggers, fitters and welders and in skills which they could never before have had a chance of learning. There is the development whereby Marathon is coming into U.C.S. to develop a completely new kind of shipbuilding—if "shipbuilding" is the word.
I believe that successive Governments deserve congratulation on a sophisticated and imaginative policy which is already within sight of bringing great advantages to Britain. I believe that one should name a retired civil servant who has so far gone unsung. He has master-minded a great deal of this from the start; his impartiality has been recognised by all the oil companies that I have spoken to and that have competed with one another for his attention. He is a man whose single aim has been the national advantage. I refer to Mr. Angus Beckett, of the former Ministry of Power. One trusts that his services will be well recognised in due time.
My Lords, one or two constructive interrogatives. Do the Government yet have a policy which will have regard to the possibility of developing common user pipelines on the North Sea bed? When will the report of the study by the International Marine Engineering Group, into the reasons why British industry has been slow to hitch on to the oil opportunity, be published? I should also like like to ask: can outside bodies such as the Scottish Council or the Council of Manufacturers of Petroleum Industry

381
Equipment help or provide information in any way, and will the IMEG report be published? I could not give my noble friend advance notice of this question. and no doubt he will let me know later if he is unable to answer me now. Some members of the Society of Underwater Technology have been complaining that the Committee on Marine Technology suffer from too restricted resources—a quarter of a million pounds over the whole field in three years. Will the Government get in touch with the Society and consider any representations that they have to make? Finally, will the Government take a look at the quite widely expressed need of short-term finance for many small firms which are trying to get in on the supply business and which inevitably find the N.R.D.C. machinery cumbersome and slow?
Once more, my Lords, I believe that we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. for introducing the subject to us this afternoon. I suggest that his approach is a challenge to common sense. I would say:
"To its own impulse every creature stirs. Live by thy right and Earth will live by hers"
6.37 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think this debate has justified quite strikingly the system of mini-debates which was one of the recommendations of the Committee of which, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was a member. This is a classic occasion. There is not a very full House at the moment, but certainly all noble Lords have listened with the greatest interest to my noble friend Lord Balogh, and to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who declined to associate himself with any deep knowledge of the subject. Let me hastily associate myself with that lack also, because I am quite sure that he knows much more than I do. Of course we have listened to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who is always formidably briefed. But I would especially congratulate my noble friend Lord Balogh, because I think his speech represented a great deal of very detailed research. His mastery of his subject and his persistence in pursuing Ministers in search of information has now led to a debate in which the Government, as a result, have a lot of questions to answer. We have at least another
382
hour—I shall be only five or ten minutes—so the noble Earl will have all the time in the world to answer every point that has been made. To help him, I should like to pick out certain points, and I should be most interested to hear what he says about these. This, however, certainly does not remove from him the obligation of answering all the points of my noble friend.
The basic question—indeed, this was fundamental to the Motion—is: have the British had the best possible deal or have successive Governments (whether the Labour Government or the present Government for that matter) failed to look after the interests of the British people in an area which can reasonably be called the public domain, an area in which licences are granted and in which clearly, if enterprise, be it private or public, is to operate, we have to be satisfied that the right return will be attained? I acknowledge that Governments have experimented in their ways of dealing with this issue. I was very interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, had to say about the system of auctioning, though I do not quite see why, even with auctioning, it is not possible to impose conditions. But I myself would not dream of advocating any particular approach to this matter, because I simply do not know enough about it. The noble Earl, Lord Limerick, I have no doubt will be entirely sincere and honest in what he says and will probably claim that we have had as good a bargain as could be reasonably achieved. I hope he will be able to substantiate this claim by giving answers to some of the specific points.
I should like to deal with some of the figures mentioned by my noble friend, particularly in relation to the return on capital. In listening to what was, if I may say so, a difficult and complicated speech, I had no time when listening to my noble friend—I am no economist—to work out what the right d.c.f. return over the period should have been. I would be interested to know whether the Government have views on the return because my noble friend produced evidence, which needs to be accepted or controverted, that we are doing a lot less well than the Libyans. I sense that one of the reasons for this is that we have been trying to set a good example to the rest of the world. If that is really so, quite frankly

383
Governments have not been pursuing the national interest. I do not believe that our setting a good example is necessarily going to improve our position with regard to the OPEC countries, and certainly not with certain of the North African and Middle Eastern countries. We would he interested to know what the return is and how it compares with that of other countries.
This leads me to another point of interest, one which is sensitive. My noble friend questioned whether the Minister has been operating his discretion. As I understand it, this would be in finally arbitrating with regard to the price that is paid for the product. My noble friend asked whether he has been doing this with full access to all information that is available. In particular my noble friend pointed out that even in the United States, as well as other countries, the operating companies are required to open their books. My noble friend implied that where American companies are concerned their accountancy was so much better that it would be particularly worth opening their books. I would not necessarily accept that the accountancy is not adequate: but is it a fact that books are normally opened in other countries? The noble Earl, with a great deal o! experience as a banker, is particularly well qualified to comment on this, as he is on the appropriate returns from investment. If my noble friend's figures are correct—and they seem to me to be impressive—the return has been higher than is warranted and the return to the British taxpayer has been lower than it should have been. That is very much the burden of what he said and it is clearly important that we should get answers on this. I will not go into the matter of taxation, partly because I tend to get lost in overseas profits but it would be interesting if the noble Earl would comment on this particular matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, suggested that the British system of licensing and less emphasis on State participation has led to a much greater degree of exploitation than has been achieved by other countries. Considering that State participation had, as I understand it, been obligatory at certain stages, I am not sure whether his figures are justified. But the question still remains
384
as to whether it was right to press ahead in this way. There are many possible explanations. It may be that the noble Earl has the answers as to why there has been heavier exploitation in the British sectors. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made the point that we have gone rapidly ahead, but in order to do so a great deal of the capital equipment had to be purchased from abroad. This was another point which my noble friend Lord Balogh made. The Norwegians have deliberately followed a different policy in this matter. I will quote from Mr. Gulnes. They decided not to have a speedy exploration, "as the British authorities had decided to do". They have sufficient petroleum to cover their needs from one find and they think that it is
"more important for Norway now to gain experience to try to educate our own industry as soon as possible so that they can take an active part in the further development, and because of this, and because we want to have sufficient experience before we go on to a new round, we have decided that we should work slowly".
Then he goes on to say,
"Coming now to Government participation, we have decided that this is the best way to get know-how for Norway as to the way the Norwegian industry can best benefit from this."
This is the idea behind direct participation. It is not enough just to boast that there has been a greater expansion in the British sector. It may well be that there ought to have been greater stimulus. Perhaps now the Government arc taking a more rational approach to the support of industry, and have got over some of their earlier doctrinaire ideas in this matter and British industry will be able to play a bigger part.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he agree that, first, the case for most rapid development has been made very effectively by the European Parliament whose authority I know he will regard highly—probably more highly than I do myself? Secondly. would he also agree that, having accepted that as a reasonable policy, right or wrong—and others think it is reasonable—the necessity to go overseas for equipment, and so on, is because the equipment is not available here? But now it is becoming available, and this is a new industry that we are hastening to develop.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Earl quotes the European Parliament, I must say that I do not necessarily regard them as the authority on what is at this moment a national question. My noble friend's question related to whether at this moment the British were getting the best advantage.
The Norwegians have tried to stimulate Norwegian industry to take part in service activities. They have in fact asked for a gentlemen's agreement. But it is no use asking for a gentlemen's agreement if you are not in fact at that moment producing the equipment. This brings me back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was making. It is a fact that Mr. Reid, in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, the chief shop steward, has probably done more to try to lead to a development of this kind than anything the Government have done in the matter. And it is a fact—the figures were given, and this is a subsidiary argument of my noble friend—that British industry has not benefited as much as it should have. I am not going to criticise either the previous Government or this Government on these particular terms, but there are questions that need to be answered. I am making this argument in reply to the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. As he knows, I always take his arguments extremely seriously; he is always very well informed in these matters, but I do not think his argument on this particular occasion is necessarily a decisive justification of Government policy.
There has been some criticism of Departments and civil servants in this matter. I am always myself slightly sensitive when noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, speak about Whitehall control. I do not doubt that there are some good Ministers in this Government—I am told that the noble Earl is a most promising Minister—but I do slightly object to it all somehow being blamed on the Civil Service. We ask the Civil Service of this country to undertake the most astonishing range of subjects. They do so and it is quite miraculous how well they do when sometimes they are in fact unprofessional in these matters. Of course, a lot is going on and I do not propose, tempting though it is after hearing my noble friend Lord Balogh, to go into the
386
whole question of the structure of Government. We might have another mini-debate on that subject another day. But there is no doubt that the civil servants—and I acknowledge the tribute that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, paid to one senior civil servant—undertake a wide range of tasks. It is true that we do not know what their performance is, but one of the things that struck me when I was a Minister was the astonishing responsibilities that comparatively small numbers of civil servants carry in a particular area.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I was not criticising the Civil Service as such. I was perhaps suggesting that there were not enough Scottish civil servants.
LORD SHACKLETON: All I can say is, my Lords, that when I first became a Minister in London I was surrounded by Scottish civil servants—my Permanent Secretary, my private secretary—and I wonder how many English civil servants there are in St. Andrew's House. None the less, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and I do not want to distract from the main question.
There is a case to answer here, and I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, will make as convincing a reply as possible but at the end of it (and I am not prejudging what he will say) I suspect that because of the time available there will be questions left unanswered. I am wondering whether, in an issue of this kind, there is not something more we can do to bring the facts into complete clarity and away from possible political criticism. My noble friend Lord Balogh, although more critical of the present Government, did not allow the previous Government to go unscathed. I would ask in this connection why it is that the Government do not allow, as I understand it, or will not allow under new legislation, nationalised industries actually to market the oil if they are members of a consortium. I am told that there is a completely doctrinaire discrimination against nationalised industry. This always strikes me as quite extraordinary, if it is so. Why private and public enterprise cannot compete, I do not know.
Unless the Government are prepared to hire the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, actually to advise the Civil Service, or

387
somebody from OPEC—it may be that we should ask them to come and help us on this—may I suggest that there is one factor the Minister might consider; that is, that some form of inquiry should be made. I am very nervous about Inquiries, especially after the V. and G. Inquiry, and I dislike intensely the idea of a tribunal approach. My noble friend made not the slightest criticism of the integrity of anybody who was dealing with this. But if we could have an Inquiry it would be easy enough to get a leading firm of accountants and assessors—Cooper Brothers—or merchant bankers, Kleinwort, Benson, and there are quite a number of others, to judge whether or not we had had a good deal. Alternatively, the time will come, I trust, when the Public Accounts Committee might look at this. I think this would be within their remit, at least with regard to the action of the Department. Perhaps they have already done so and it has escaped my notice.
My Lords, there are questions to be answered and now the noble Earl has plenty of time in which to answer them. My noble friend Lord Balogh will himself have a few minutes afterwards to answer the answers. Meanwhile, I congratulate him and I congratulate noble Lords on producing an interesting debate and on allowing someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject to take part in it.
6.57 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, we indeed welcome the opportunity afforded by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, to debate this subject this afternoon. It has permitted many views to be expressed, ranging wide over the subject, and a broad spectrum of opinion. I have some reservations on the terms of the Motion itself and it is my task to seek to establish that the overall picture is by no means so bleak as the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, suggests. We pay the closest attention to what he says and what he writes. In an article in February he offered some criticism of the minuscule Ministerial complement at the Department of Trade and Industry. I can tell him, having taken note of his representations, that since that date we
388
have increased it by no less than 28 per cent., and I stand here representing 14 per cent. of that increase.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. could the noble Earl translate that into actual manpower? Is that a quarter?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Certainly, my Lords, we have added two Ministers to a team of seven.
I should like, if I may, to spend a few minutes in painting a general picture of the situation as it now stands and then to return to specific points which have been made in the course of this debate. I think the first thing we should remember is that we are talking about a very short span of time. All the matters which we are discussing this afternoon have happened in only eight years, since 1964, when the United Kingdom became the first North Sea coastal State to provide the legislative framework for operations on the Continental Shelf. The possibilities in 1964 were virtually unknown; the environment was difficult and a very large risk investment was then required. The guiding principle which was then adopted and agreed by successive British Governments was to achieve a rapid and a thorough exploration and development of potential resources. This was regarded as the priority task, and it so remains to-day.
I think we can say that this policy has been remarkably successful. Gas was discovered in the West Sole field in October, 1965, just over 12 months from the issue of the first production licences. Commercial production started in April, 1967. Four more major gas fields were discovered between 1965 and 1967. In October, 1970, oil was discovered in the B.P. Forties field, followed by an announcement in February this year that commercial quantities of oil had been found in Shell/Esso's Auk field. To date. there are recoverable reserves of gas of 32 trillion cubic feet—and to avoid any possible ambiguity that is 32 X 1012 cubic feet. Oil is expected to be produced at the rate of 25 million tons per annum by the mid 1970s, and could perhaps reach 75 million tons per annum by the mid 1980s. The benefits to the country are of great importance. Not only will our balance of payments be improved—to the extent of perhaps £500 million a year by the 1980s—but energy supplies will

389
be made more secure by relieving our current overwhelming dependence on imported oil.
In order to achieve the main objective of rapid and thorough exploration, it was decided in 1964 that licences would be issued at Ministers' discretion rather than by the alternative method of selling them to the highest bidder. In some parts of the world, for example the United States of America, concession areas are often put up to auction. This has advantages, such as administrative simplicity, impartiality and financial return to the State whether or not petroleum is found. After study, it was decided that such a system would not be suitable for the United Kingdom on the Continental Shelf at that time. Under an auction system there could be no assurance of British participation, and we did not really want a situation where all the licences might be acquired by other countries. Moreover, North Sea potential was still unproven and could be tested only by imposing work programmes on licensees, which would be difficult to control under an auctioning system. For these reasons the allocation of licences by discretion was continued in the second and third rounds of licensing.
When we came to the fourth round, last year, it was decided, as in the case of earlier rounds, to abide by the discretionary system, placing greater importance on the rapid and thorough development of our Continental Shelf while reducing our dependence on Middle East and African oil, than on the immediate cash receipts to be had from auctioning. At the same time, it was recognised that the gas and oil discoveries which had already been made and were numbered were taking the Continental Shelf out of the initial exploratory phase and that an experiment in an alternative system of licensing could be tried out. It was decided, therefore, to carry out a limited tendering exercise to gain experience in this method for later rounds and to test the market by offering blocks which, though all in areas where hydrocarbons had been discovered, ranged from the superficially very attractive to the very indifferent. As there was a risk of a poor response which might have discredited the territory for the future, the number of blocks was kept down to
390
15. The results of tendering were unpredictable but extremely interesting; one block was valued by the highest bidder at £21 million and in all a sum of £37 million was obtained for the 15 blocks, so that a total value of £16 million was placed on the other 14 blocks. This experience will of course be studied and taken into account in the planning of future rounds of licensing.
No doubt more cash could have been obtained by offering all or most of the blocks for tender, but it is impossible to say how much. Certainly we should have seen nothing as big as the Shell/Esso bid of £21 million, and many of the blocks where we are anxious to see exploration might well have gone entirely without bids. Instead, we have achieved comprehensive exploration programmes over a very wide area, involving the drilling of 220 new wells at a cost exceeding £200 million. Forty-three per cent. participation by British companies has been achieved, and we now have involved in the North Sea oil search almost every oil company of world standing.
With regard to revenues, thus far about £56 million has been paid into the Exchequer arising from royalties and rents derived from the exploration and exploitation of our gas and oil resources. Other benefits have accrued from activities on the United Kingdom Shelf: new industries will have to be created to cater for the oil companies' many needs. The oil industry will for the rest of this decade spend on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf probably as much as £300 million per annum.
British industry, which has not had an impressive record of securing orders for the plant and equipment associated with the development of the gas fields (mainly because a home market did not exist) is now becoming increasingly aware of the opportunities and should be able to play a significant role. For the development of the recent oil discoveries companies are developing sites in Scotland and the North of England on which the massive fixed platforms can be fabricated prior to floating out to the oil field. Offshore drilling operations require wide supporting services ranging from the supply of materials such as drilling mud and fuel and water for use on the rigs, to bulk catering supplies. And now that the operations

391
are extending to other parts of the North Sea the scale of the operations is increasing.
In short, the exploration and development of North Sea hydrocarbon resources has provided a stimulus to various sectors of the economy and, through displacement of imported fuels, will be of very great benefit to the balance of payments. The policy adopted by successive Governments has meant that in the short space of eight years, working in the hostile environment of the North Sea and with no assurance at the outset of any commercial quantities of oil or gas whatever, we have already found enough gas to supply over 90 per cent. of our needs and are well on the way also to meeting a substantial part of our oil needs. Attempts to achieve early gains for the Exchequer by imposing very high licence fees, or by offering territory to tender, would in the Government's view have slowed down this process, and thus frustrated our main objective. Though we are confident about North Sea oil resources, the actual oil fields will be discovered only by intense and sustained exploration efforts and by an immense commitment of risk capital. The foundations have been well laid.
I now turn to the points that have been raised, and I shall do my best to satisfy those who have raised them. I think I face here a formidable task because so much expertise has been displayed. If I deal inadequately with any of these points, I assure you that they will be most carefully studied after this debate, and if there is anything to follow up we shall do our utmost to follow it up. Perhaps I migh0.t take first some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in his opening speech. He suggested that the size of these oil fields has been underplayed—perhaps deliberately underplayed—by industry. Mentioning gas first, I think the size of the gas fields is not in dispute. The Government and the oil industry itself, and the Gas Council, all agree that the recoverable reserves of gas to date stand at just over the figure which I mentioned of 32 trillion cubic feet. In the case of oil it is too early to be definite about discoveries or potential. We only have one field currently being developed—the Forties field—and here production is not due until late in 1974. As I mentioned earlier, production has been estimated at 25 million tons rising, we hope,
392
to 75 million tons by 1980; but of course the latter figure is highly speculative and will remain so at least until the end of this year's drilling.
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, also mentioned the exploration success ratio and questioned the figure of 1 to 20. I am no expert and I should hate to bandy figures here; but I wonder whether in quoting 1 to 5, he was referring to all hydrocarbon discoveries during drilling operations. The ratio of 1 to 20 is, I believe, generally accepted as a confident ratio of discoveries which are commercially worth exploiting, and we might remember that it costs just as much—or perhaps more—to drill a hole which reveals insufficient oil or gas as it does to drill a dry hole.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, can the Minister give the precise numbers of holes that were drilled and how many were commercially viable? Unfortunately, I think the Minister seems to be misinformed if he says that in the case of the North Sea complex the ratio is 1 to 20. That is very high. It is certainly surprisingly high. There was no suggestion whatsoever of that sort of figure in the recent literature about the subject.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, without notice, I am afraid I cannot give the precise number. I was not suggesting that that figure applied particularly to the North Sea. It was quoted, I think, as a general figure. I will, however, make a point of looking into this matter and letting the noble Lord know.
The noble Lord's next point concerned public-sector participation, and I think he referred particularly to the Irish Sea. On the third round of licensing the criteria were that applicants for blocks in the Irish Sea should offer participations—here the percentages have not been quoted—to the National Coal Board or to the Gas Council. The Irish Sea was not reserved for public corporations although the Gas Council, as it turned out, were granted one exclusive licence, and they or the National Coal Board were participants in all the licences granted. This, of course, did not affect the Gas Council participation in the North Sea gasfields, a point that had been suggested; and the public-sector participation now is approximately equal to

393
2l per cent. of known gas reserves—that would include the shares held by the National Coal Board, the Gas Council and through the Government shareholding in British Petroleum.
The noble Lord also raised a question—which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—about the examination of accounts and the requirement to keep accounts. There is no legal requirement for this because the licensee does not dispose of the petroleum, the gas or the oil to Her Majesty's Government. The Government may intervene in the matter of price only when there is a dispute between the licensee and the Gas Council as to whether gas is being offered at a reasonable price for industrial purposes. The basic philosophy that has been followed by three successive Governments has been that they arc content to !cave the negotiations to the Gas Council without checking on the profits made specifically in their North Sea operations. There is, of course, the overall check on all their activities in the accounts they produce for the purposes of their shareholders and the Inland Revenue, but this is not broken down to identify the figures. This is a philosophical point which has been taken by all the Governments. I understand that the Gas Council have shown themselves to be pretty tough negotiators, but so far agreement has been reached in all cases on the appropriate price of gas and no cases have gone to arbitration.
On the question of whether the price is too high it is always difficult to be dogmatic. The Gas Council, as I say, are reckoned to have driven a hard bargain. They are a monopoly buyer with a first-hand knowledge of costs of producing gas on the Continental Shelf through their participation in some of the syndicates. The noble Lord in another context has expressed some complaint that gas prices were fixed by a contract for a term of years. Again this is something that could cut either way; but against a background of steadily rising prices—not only generally rising prices, but rising prices of gas throughout the world—the fact that we have had a fixed price for a number of years is surely more a matter for congratulation by the consumer, although possibly a matter of regret for the producer.
394
We then come to the question of the returns that may be expected on these investments. My Lords, I find this an extremely difficult question. I speak here as one who years ago was an accountant. It is difficult to measure these returns; but even more, it is extremely difficult to decide what one would regard as a proper return in planning the way these areas are handled. You start with a position where nothing is known to exist at all. You invite people to come and search for it. They are putting a great deal of money at risk. If we try to relate a profit which a company makes in a given year on a single successful borehole to the capital which has been invested in that particular operation, this does not produce anything like a reasonable computation of what would be a fair profit for the industry; what they would need to induce them to undertake the exploration which we want them to undertake, always remembering that our first priority has been to persuade the concessionaires to get on with the job. I should be very wary, therefore, of bandying figures. Only the market place will show what is the right level here.
I am not aware of any evidence that these exorbitant profits have yet been earned. It is possible to extrapolate figures and to show that there is the prospect of very large profits. Here I should like to look with some attention at the figures quoted by the noble Lord when I have a chance to read the debate. He will forgive me if I do not comment in detail now on his figures. I might just say that one case has been fairly widely cited. One of the oil-exploration companies put out a prospectus. They were a small company who happened to strike lucky first time and sought capital to develop this find. It was suggested that this showed on the forecast of earnings that they would make a very high rate of return on their capital. I think they would expect in the circumstances to make a reasonable rate of return on their capital, but to attempt to relate that forecast profit, as attempts have been made, to the nominal or initial paid-up capital of the company without having regard to the very large sums that will be required to bring the oil ashore and market it, are highly misleading, and to say that there would be a profit of 70 per cent.—or any other

395
Figure—on paid capital at the time the prospectus was issued really would have no more meaning than saying that shares purchased in the market carry a rate of dividend of 70 per cent., or 200 per cent., or any other figure, on their nominal value without having regard to the price of purchase. I do not want to seem to duck this issue, but it is almost impossible to say that we think the right rate of return is 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. before or after tax—whatever you take as your criterion. If we accept this point that our main object is to get on with the job, then we have to plan our strategy to fulfil that aim.
My Lords, I turn now to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who made some most interesting points about Scotland. I shall be referring later to several specific benefits to the Scottish economy from exploration and exploitation which is shortly to take place. If he will forgive me for saying so, the noble Lord strayed a bit far at times from oil and gas, and I will not follow him in all he said. But, of course, careful note will be taken of his remarks.
In his reference to a Scottish development fund, if I heard him aright, he suggested that there should be some direct diversion of revenues to this fund. This is a difficult question and, if I may say so, a double-sided question. It is very much a matter of where everything comes ashore. It is also a matter of the amount of pre-investment needed in order to achieve these benefits. I should be inclined to doubt at least the initial solvency of any such fund were it to be examined.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I did not say "fund". He may have misheard me. It was a development bank that I was referring to. The funds for the development authority could be found through the establishment of a development bank. I did not suggest a development fund. There may have been some misunderstanding.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I will certainly look carefully at what he said.
I listened with great attention, indeed admiration, to the speech of the noble
396
Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who showed himself to be, if I may say so, a master of this question. His contribution was an extremely valuable one and one which I very much enjoyed. I followed him particularly in two arguments, one of which I think he made so well that I need not repeat it, which was the argument in favour of allocation rather than auction of licences. I do not think one can accept that argument, although it was most persuasively put, as being necessarily of universal validity. Therefore there was a limited experiment on what is known as the fourth round of licensing in auctioning a part of the blocks which were on offer, and the results of that will be most carefully analysed. He also dealt most skilfully with the objects of the surrender provisions. I should like to add one remark to what he said. which I think reinforces the object of this policy. Several areas have already been returned under the six-year rule from the first round of concessions granted in 1964. Some of these have subsequently been relet. and one of those which has been relet has in the hands of another concessionaire shown a gas find, which I think is quite a vindication of the procedure.
The noble Earl fired a number of specific questions at me and I shall be able to answer two of them specifically. He asked about common use of pipelines. This matter is certainly under study. Secondly, he was interested in the timing of the study report which, as announced on May 26, is being undertaken by an international management and engineering group. It has been asked that this report shall be completed by the autumn. We certainly take note of his questions about the other bodies with whom we might be in touch and will examine them.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, then asked me a number of questions, and I am aghast at the prospect of the time that I should have to fill if I took up his invitation to deal with them all exhaustively. I will do my best in a limited way. The first question he raised was the return on capital, and I think I have covered that in an earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and also his point about access to information. He raised an interesting question as to why it was that we had more exploitation in

397
the United Kingdom sectors than elsewhere in the North Sea. I think the explanation is probably that this has been our policy and it has been successful. We have placed a different priority on this policy than have some of the other countries bordering the North Sea, and are looking at the resources to be found there. Particularly he asked about the Norwegians. I am in a position only to hazard an uninformed opinion on this matter and that opinion is that the Norwegians have only a fraction of our domestic demand for power, so their incentive to accelerate the rate at which it is brought ashore is much less strong than ours. We are looking at the balance of payments question, on which we take an overall view, and we are also seeking—and I think events in the last few months, indeed the last few days, have shown the relevance of this—to reduce our dependence on petroleum imported from Middle Eastern sources. The noble Lord asked some other questions which, in so far as I have not dealt with them earlier on, I will certainly look at carefully.
What I should like to do in conclusion, having started with a statement of where we stand now, is to show what we see happening at present and in the future. It was, of course, not until gas was first discovered in Holland, as recently as 1959, that the potential of petroleum on our shelf was recognised at all, and only recently has the technology of underwater exploration been developed. We in this country have developed a licensing arrangement, and this represents, as I have already said, a deliberate selection of priorities designed as a compromise to achieve two main objectives, the first being the rapid and thorough exploration, under control and with adequate British representation, of the area which showed this potential, and the second to achieve a reasonable price for the end product. This applies to gas only, and B.P., acting on their own, were the first to find gas and the first to bring it ashore. They were also, which is very good fortune, the first to find oil, and deliveries here will start from the Forties field at the end of 1974. So I think it is fair to say that the whole operation has been an exercise in discretion, balancing long and short term considerations against those
398
two objectives. I concede at once that it would be possible to increase the short-term benefit to the balance of payments by going out more to auction than by the allocation of licences in the future when another round comes along. I think it would need very careful consideration whether this, which is in our short-term interest, is in our long-term interest. But, as I say, the experience which has been gained on the earlier rounds and the discoveries since May will be evaluated in arriving at that decision.
This whole exercise has been conducted with the public interest well in mind, so that the benefits will accrue to the economy as a whole, without frustrating the effort by both public and private enterprise in an entirely new venture. As regards the acreages, there are about 45,000 square miles currently under licence out of the 170,000 square miles which are designated for the purpose. The fourth round has stimulated activity, and the best measure I can give of that is that whereas earlier in the year there were three mobile drilling platforms operating offshore there are now 13 in operation, in this very short period of months, and by late summer the number should have gone up to 20.
There are other benefits accruing to the economy, both direct and indirect, and I can give a few examples of these. A number of them relate specifically to what is going on in Scotland. First, the capacity of the Grangemouth refinery is to be redoubled to deal with oil expected from the Forties field. Secondly, new oil loading facilities are being created in the Forth and pipelines are being laid from offshore to Grangemouth. There are developments to Peterhead, Aberdeen, Dundee and other ports on the Scottish mainland and in the Shetlands. On the Clyde, Marathon have built mobile platforms, as others have done before. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, referred to the size of these platforms. I would remind the House of their cost. The fixed platforms, of which two are being fabricated in Scotland for the Forties field, cost up to £25 million each—I am sorry; one of these is being made in the North East. With all this activity comes increased demand for ancillary oil drilling equipment, supply vessels, electronic equipment, helicopters, pipe, cement. chemicals; and British industry has thus

399
been encouraged to enter the market by a big increase in the demand arising from this acivity on the United Kingdom shelf.
The Government place so much importance on the economic implications of all this that they have just commissioned a consultant study, already referred to by the noble Earl, which was announced only a fortnight ago, to assess in detail the scale of the industrial opportunities which will arise and the ability of British industry to meet them. Just in the last few days, or few weeks, we have seen the discoverey of an extension of the major Frigg field, gas field, which exends from Norwegian into United Kingdom waters. This is likely to make a significant contribution to our gas reserves. We now see a situation where well over 200 companies are engaged in the search for oil and gas on the Continental Shelf. Ranger Oil have discovered gas in a southern basin block which was recently reallocated after surrender in 1969.
My Lords, as I say, so many points were raised that I am afraid I may not have dealt adequately with all of them, but I will look at them carefully when I have the record of this debate. I hope I have said enough to show that the Government attach great importance to this subject, as previous Governments have done; that the policy is consistently directed to achieving a rapid exploitation of these most important resources, and that this policy is being most carefully and reasonably carried out.
7.32 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, in winding up this debate I thank the Minister for his reply and would also express my thanks to noble Lords for their participation. I must confess, however, that I feel a kind of disappointment. The House of Lords always strikes me as being a mixture of idealism and realism which is unique. Idealism is mainly represented by hare coursing and ponies; and the realities of life by the great vested interests of the realms, and from Stormont, fishing to oil companies. It is certainly a good thing that we have a Chamber in which so many of the great vested interests are represented. provided those vested interests declare themselves.
I fear that, so far as the Minister's reply is concerned, I am awestruck at his capacity for stonewalling, which has not
400
been paralleled since the noble Lord, Lord Butler, scored his triumphant defensive game in the far off days, which I remember but which the Minister probably does not, of the Spanish Civil War. It was the noble Earl's maiden effort in this respect and I must duly congratulate him because, as a maiden effort, it was masterly. I congratulate him also on his mastery of the mathematics of the powers of ten. I never know what a trillion means—a thousand million million or a million million—but I do not think we need to inquire into that too closely because it is of little importance and exhausion will only take place in our children's time.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I say that he has not answered any of the questions, and I must also confess that I did not expect him to answer them. After all, when I was inside I could not get these Questions answered either, and as I was in Lord Rothschild's shoes in those days, that is something. All I think we are here concerned with is the part of bureaucracy which is extremely persuasive. The main explanation of why we followed this policy which minimises the advantage which Britain is going to derive from the oil may be the rapidity of development. This would be the case if home-produced oil could completely displace the mid-Eastern or Nigerian oil. This, unfortunately, is not the case. At no point shall we be less dependent—it is the margin of dependence which is important—on mid-Eastern oil than we are now. The logical fallacy which is involved is colossal, but it is persisting and I do not think that in this short reply I shall change it. I must, however, emphasise that anybody who has a clear view of the situation could not possibly put forward the view that because of the rapidity of the exploration we ought to give up the advantages—and of course we have given up the advantages.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the Minister were concerned about the options and about the safeguarding of British interests. British interests have been reduced—and this includes the B.P. interest—from 50 per cent. to 21 per cent., so where is the advantage? The Minister boasts that all oil companies are in the North Sea. But do we want them there? We do not want them there. My

401
case against the Government was that all the oil companies there were not mainly British.
TILE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, may I be permitted to come in on that figure? Twenty-one per cent. is the figure of the public sector participation in the proven gas reserves. The overall British share in the exploration in the North Sea is 43 per cent.
LORD BALOGH: I am glad to hear it, but that figure was not given. The Norwegians give preference to home supplies but we have no such provision.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in fairness to my noble friend, he perhaps did not hear the noble Earl. I do remember him saying 43 per cent. of British participation. I was interested in knowing how much of the public participation of 21 per cent. was B.P.—but perhaps I must let my noble friend go on.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, the Minister says that platforms are going to be manufactured on the Clyde. That will mean an enormous subsidy to America again. The Minister said that the ratio is one in twenty. I quoted the figure from the oil handbook of the Shell Company, where it is said that the ratio for geophysical and geological investigations is one in five, so certainly his figure is not correct.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Lord speaks of geophysical and geological exploration. That does not necessarily mean drilling.
LORD BALOGH: In point of fact I know that the figures were well below ten, and I have very good reason to believe they are still so. If there was no disagreement between the Gas Council and the licensees there was a dereliction of duty, because obviously the Gas Council ought to have disagreed with the licensees. A trade unionist who went home saying, "I have not disagreed with my employer" would be sacked. The Minister has not given us profit figures and returns. His argument that the Oil Exploration (Holding) company prospectus gives an unfair picture is not quite correct, because the Oil Exploration
402
(Holding) company had a pro rata figure of profits on investment. Everything was on a pro rata basis of 2·4 per cent., or whatever the figure was—I do not remember now—so I cannot see how he can protest that 70 to 80 per cent. profit is not a very typical one.
If I were younger and still a tutor, I should regard 'the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, as a test for my pupils' capacity to spot non sequiturs. So far as Britain is concerned, the oil should not be exhausted as quickly as possible but should help our balance of payments as much as possible. The noble Earl pictured fatal consequences for auctions. Unfortunately, he mixed up the lack of regulations with the method of auctioneering. The fact that he mixed them up is shown by Alaska. Very strict regulations are imposed there in addition to there being auctions.
I now come to participation. The Norwegians are participating. When the noble Earl correlated the territory offered and the territory taken up to the amount of participation by the State or the public in the proceedings, he again mixed up geological knowledge of good areas with the problem of participation. Obviously, companies will be keen when good areas are offered, and those areas which have been offered on the last occasion have been known to he among the most promising. But perhaps the most interesting and least comprehensible of his objections against my case is this. No matter where the profits are remitted over the balance of payments, nevertheless the fact that oil imports go down visibly relieves the balance of payments. This is double-counting of a major order, which I should not want to follow. There is no doubt that there are people who have been led to believe that exploitation for exploitation's sake is the order of the day. I simply do not understand it.
Finally, I have carefully refrained from naming names, but the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has done so and I shall with great diligence follow the future career of that individual. I ought to ask your Lordships to divide on this matter, because obviously the answers were completely unsatisfactory. This is a terrible problem for Britain and we have lost a large pact of our heritage. But I have been told by my elders and betters, or perhaps I should say my youngers and betters.

403
that I should not do so. Therefore, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock.